FISHERIES REPORT REPORT NO. 06-02 WARMWATER STREAM FISHERIES REPORT REGION IV 2005
Prepared by
Bart D. Carter Carl E. Williams Rick D. Bivens and James W. Habera
TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY
WARMWATER STREAM FISHERIES REPORT REGION IV 2005
Prepared by
Bart D. Carter Carl E. Williams Rick D. Bivens and James W. Habera
TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY April 2006
ii Development of this report was financed in part by funds from Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration (TWRA Project 4321 and 4350) (Public Law 91-503) as documented in Federal Aid Project FW-6.
This program receives Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240.
Cover: Tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca) collected from the Clinch River during 2005. The Tangerine darter is deemed in need of management.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODS 2
Tennessee River System: Paint Rock River Hurricane Creek 9 Turkey Creek 9 Hiwassee River Unnamed Tributary to Taylor Branch 13 Clinch River 18 Williams Creek 26 Powell River 31 Little River 39 Holston River Beaver Creek 52 Watauga River Doe Creek 59 French Broad River Gap Creek 64 Pigeon River 68
SUMMARY 79
LITERATURE CITED 82
APPENDIX A: Common and scientific names of fishes used in this report 85
iv INTRODUCTION
The fish fauna of Tennessee is the most diverse in the United States, with approximately 307 species of native fish and about 30 to 33 introduced species (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Region IV has 7,837 km of streams that total approximately 5,711 ha in 21 east Tennessee counties. There are approximately 1,287 km classified as coldwater streams. Streams in Region IV, except for a few in Anderson, Campbell, and Claiborne counties (Cumberland River System streams) are in the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces of the upper Tennessee River drainage basin. The main river systems in the region are the Clinch, Powell, Little Tennessee, mainstream Tennessee River, French Broad, Nolichucky, and Holston.
Streams and rivers across the state are of considerable value as they provide a variety of recreational opportunities. These include fishing, canoeing, swimming, and other riverine activities that are unmatched by other aquatic environments. Streams and rivers are also utilized as water sources both commercially and domestically. The management and protection of this resource is recognized by Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) and has been put forth in the Strategic Plan (TWRA 2000) as a primary goal.
This is the nineteenth annual report on stream fishery data collection in TWRA's Region IV. The main purpose of this project is to collect baseline information on game and non-game fish and macroinvertebrate populations in the region. This baseline data is necessary to update and expand our Tennessee Aquatic Database System (TADS) and aid in the management of fisheries resources in the region.
Efforts to survey the region’s streams have led to many cooperative efforts with other state and federal agencies. These have included the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the National Park Service (NPS).
The information gathered for this project is presented in this report as river and stream accounts. These accounts include an introduction describing the general characteristics of the survey site, a study area and methods section summarizing site location and sampling procedures, a results section outlining the findings of the survey(s), and a discussion section, which allows us to summarize our field observations and make management recommendations.
1 METHODS
The streams to be sampled and the methods required are outlined in TWRA field request No. 04-05. A total of 11 rivers/streams were sampled and are included in this report. Stream surveys were conducted from April to November 2005. Fifty-one (IBI, CPUE, or Qualitative) fish samples and 12 benthic samples were collected.
SAMPLE SITE SELECTION
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) sample sites were selected that would give the broadest picture of impacts to the watershed. We typically located our sample site in close proximity to the mouth of a stream to maximize resident species collection. However, we positioned survey sites far enough upstream to decrease the probability of collecting transient species. Large river sampling sites (Clinch River, Powell River, Little River, and Pigeon River) were selected based on historical sampling locations and available access points. Typically we selected sample areas in these rivers that represented the best available habitat for any given reach being surveyed. Sampling locations were delineated in the field utilizing hand held Geographical Positioning Units (GPS) and then digitally re-created using a commercially available software package.
WATERSHED ANALYSIS
Watershed size and/or stream order has historically been used to create relationships for determining maximum expected species richness for IBI analysis. This has been accomplished by plotting species richness for a number of sites against watershed areas and/or stream orders (Fausch et al. 1984). We chose to use watershed area (kilometer2) to develop our relationships as this variable has been shown to be a more reliable metric for predicting maximum species richness. Watershed areas (the area upstream of the survey site) were determined from USGS 1:24,000 scale maps.
FISH COLLECTIONS
Fish data were collected by employing an Index of Biological Integrity (Karr et al. 1986). Fish were collected with standard electrofishing (backpack) and seining techniques. A 5 x 1.3 meter seine was used to make hauls in shallow pool and run areas. Riffle and deeper run habitats were sampled with a seine in conjunction with a backpack electrofishing unit (100-600 VAC). An area approximately the length of the seine2 (i.e., 5 meter x 5 meter) was electrofished in a downstream direction. A person with a dipnet assisted the person electrofishing in collecting those fish, which did not freely drift into the seine. Timed (5-min duration) backpack electrofishing runs were used to sample shoreline habitats. In both cases (seining or shocking) an estimate of area (meter2) covered on each pass was calculated. Fish collections were made in all habitat types within the selected survey reach. Collections were made repeatedly for each habitat type until no new species was collected for three consecutive samples for each habitat type. All fish collected from each sample were enumerated and in the case of game fish, lengths
2 obtained. Anomalies (e.g., parasites, deformities, eroded fins, lesions, or tumors) were noted along with occurrences of hybridization. After processing, the captured fish were either held in captivity or released into the stream where they could not be recaptured.
Catch-per-unit-effort samples (CPUE) were conducted in four rivers during 2005. Timed boat electrofishing runs were made in pool and shallower habitat where navigable. Efforts were made to sample the highest quality habitat in each sample site and include representation of all habitat types typical to the reaches surveyed. Total electrofishing time was calculated and was used to determine our catch-effort estimates (fish/hour).
Generally, fish were identified in the field and released. Problematic specimens were preserved in 10% formalin and later identified in the lab or taken to Dr. David A. Etnier at the University of Tennessee Knoxville (UTK) for identification. Most of the preserved fish collected in the 2005 samples will be catalogued into our reference collection or deposited in the University of Tennessee Research Collection of Fishes. Common and scientific names of fishes used in this report are after Nelson et al. (2004) and Etnier and Starnes (1993).
AGE and GROWTH
In order to address management questions pertaining to the age and growth characteristics of stream dwelling smallmouth bass, spotted bass, largemouth bass, and rock bass populations, statewide collection of otolith samples was initiated in 1995 by regional stream crews. No otoltihs were collected from black bass or rock bass in 2005 as collections were made from these rivers between 1997 and 2000.
BENTHIC COLLECTIONS
Qualitative benthic samples were collected from each IBI fish sample site (12 total). These were taken with aquatic insect nets, by rock turning, and by selected pickings from as many types of habitat as possible within the sample area. Taxa richness and relative abundance are the primary considerations of this type of sampling. Taxa richness reflects the health of the benthic community and biological impairment is reflected in the absence of pollution sensitive taxa such as Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT).
Large particles and debris were picked from the samples and discarded in the field. The remaining sample was preserved in 70% ethanol and later sorted in the laboratory. Organisms were enumerated and attempts were made to identify specimens to species level when possible. Many were identified to genus, and most were at least identified to family. Dr. David A. Etnier (UTK) examined problematic specimens and either made the determination or confirmed our identifications. Comparisons with identified specimens in our aquatic invertebrate collection were also useful in making determinations. For the most part, nomenclature of aquatic insects used in this report follows Brigham et al. (1982) and Louton (1982). Names of stoneflies (Plecoptera) are after Stewart and Stark (1988) and caddisflies are after Etnier et al. (1998). Benthic results are presented in tabular form with each stream account.
3 WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Basic water quality data were taken at most sites in conjunction with the fishery and benthic samples. The samples included temperature, pH, and conductivity. Data were taken from midstream and mid-depth at each site, using a YSI model 33 S-C-T meter. Scientific ProductsTM pH indicator strips were used to measure pH. Stream velocities were measured with a Marsh-McBirney Model 201D current meter. The Robins-Crawford "rapid crude" technique (as described by Orth 1983) was used to estimate flows. Water quality parameters were recorded on physicochemical data forms and are included with each stream account.
HABITAT QUALITY ANALYSIS
Beginning in 2004, the stream survey unit introduced an experimental habitat assessment form that built on the existing method by incorporating biological impairment and metric modifications to the standardized form. The major advantages of this evaluation procedure include more concise metrics and categories that identify the stream or river based on size, gradient, temperature, eco-region and alterations of flow based on groundwater or hydroelectric influences.
The other issue we wanted to address with this new evaluation was the development of our own biotic index for benthic macroinvertebrates. By assigning an overall value to the water quality, habitat, and biological impairment of a given reach of stream we can begin to assign tolerance values to associated benthic insect species collected during the survey. This will ultimately allow use to develop a more accurate biotic index for benthic macroinvertebrates for the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge Eco-regions of east Tennessee. The illustrations below depict the layout of the experimental form including the 14 habitat/water quality metrics, the biotic index adjustment, ecoregion classification, and stream type.
We feel that this form allows use to be more precise in our evaluation of the stream habitat quality and gives us a more defined evaluation pertaining to stream morphology and location. We will continue to complete both habitat evaluations for each stream survey for the next couple of field seasons in order to fully evaluate the new form.
4 Experimental Stream Habitat Assessment Form
5 DATA ANALYSIS
Twelve metrics described by Karr et al. (1986) were used to determine an IBI score for each stream surveyed. These metrics were designed to reflect fish community health from a variety of perspectives (Karr et al. 1986). Given that IBI metrics were developed for the midwestern United States, many state and federal agencies have modified the original twelve metrics to accommodate regional differences. Such modifications have been developed for Tennessee primarily through the efforts of TWRA (Bivens et al. 1995), TVA, and Tennessee Tech University. In developing our scoring criteria for the twelve metrics we reviewed pertinent literature [North American Atlas of Fishes (Lee et al. 1980), The Fishes of Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993), various TWRA Annual Reports and unpublished data] to establish historical and more recent accounts of fishes expected to occur in the drainages we sampled. Scoring criteria for the twelve metrics were modified according to watershed size. Watersheds draining less than 13 kilometer2 were assigned different scoring criteria than those draining greater areas. This was done to accommodate the inherent problems associated with small stream samples (e.g., lower catch rates and species richness). Young-of-the-year fish and non- native species were excluded from the IBI calculations. After calculating a final score, an integrity class was assigned to the stream reach based on that score. The classes used with the exception of New River drainage streams follow those described by Karr et al. (1986).
Karr et al. (1986) criteria
Total IBI score Integrity Class Attributes (sum of the 12 metric ratings) ______58-60 Excellent Comparable to the best situations without human disturbance; all regionally expected species for the habitat and stream size, including the most intolerant forms, are present with a full array of size classes; balanced trophic structure.
48-52 Good Species richness somewhat below expectation, especially due to the loss of the most intolerant forms; some species are present with less than optimal abundance or size
6 distributions; trophic structure shows some signs of stress.
40-44 Fair Signs of additional deterioration include loss of intolerant forms, fewer species, highly skewed trophic structure (e.g., increasing frequency of omnivores and green sunfish or other tolerant species); older age classes of top predators may be rare.
28-34 Poor Dominated by omnivores, tolerant forms, and habitat generalists; few top carnivores; growth rates and condition factors commonly depressed; hybrids and diseased fish often present.
12-22 Very poor Few fish present, mostly introduced or tolerant forms; hybrids common; disease, parasites fin damage, and other anomalies regular.
No fish Repeated sampling finds no fish.
7 Catch-per-unit-effort analysis was performed on the four large rivers sampled during 2005. Total time spent electrofishing at each site was used to calculate the CPUE estimates for each species collected. Length categorization analysis (Gabelhouse 1984) was used to calculate Proportional Stock Density (PSD) and Relative Stock Density (RSD) for black bass and rock bass populations sampled.
Benthic data collected for the 2005 surveys were subjected to a biotic index that rates stream condition based on the overall taxa tolerance values and the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa present. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) has developed a bioclassification index and associated criteria for the southeastern United States (Lenat 1993). This technique rates water quality according to scores derived from taxa tolerance values and EPT taxa richness values. The final derivation of the water quality classification is based on the combination of scores generated from the two indices. The criteria used to generate the biotic index values and EPT values are as follows:
Score Biotic Index Values EPT Values 5 (Excellent) < 5.14 > 33 4.6 5.14-5.18 32-33 4.4 5.19-5.23 30-31 4 (Good) 5.24-5.73 26-29 3.6 5.74-5.78 24-25 3.4 5.79-5.83 22-23 3 5.84-6.43 18-21 2.6 6.44-6.48 16-17 2.4 6.49-6.53 14-15 2 6.54-7.43 10-13 1.6 7.44-7.48 8-9 1.4 7.49-7.53 6-7 1 (Poor) > 7.53 0-5
The overall result is an index of water quality that is designed to give a general state of pollution regardless of the source (Lenat 1993). Taxa tolerance rankings were based on those given by NCDEM (1995) with minor modifications for taxa, which did not have assigned tolerance values.
8 Turkey Creek and Hurricane Creek
As part of the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) funding being given to state wildlife management agencies by the USFWS, many states including Tennessee have implemented wildlife diversity monitoring programs to gather information regarding nongame species within their political boundaries. In Tennessee, regional programs have been developed as a result of this SWG initiative. We were invited to attend a “bioblitz” event organized by TWRA’s Region II within the newly acquired Bear Hollow Mountain WMA. Our participation in the event concentrated on evaluating the fish and benthic communities within two streams on the WMA (Turkey Creek and Hurricane Creek). Both survey locations were in Franklin County in close proximity to the TN/AL state line (Figure 1). A listing of the fish and benthic invertebrates collected from these streams can be found in Tables 1-3. We did collect one Neophylax species from Turkey Creek that may represent and undescribed species. Further collection and rearing will be conducted in order to assess the taxonomic uncertainty of this caddisfly.
Figure 1. Sample site locations for Turkey Creek and Hurricane Creek 2005.
Turkey Creek Sample Site Lat: 35.00560 Long: -86.11430 20-Sept.-05
Hurricane Creek Sample Site Lat: 34.98970 Long: -86.08950 21-Sept.-05
9 Table 1. Fish species collected in Turkey Creek and Hurricane Creek 2005. Turkey Creek (420051401) Hurricane Creek (420051501)
Species Species
Rhinichthys obtusus Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma oligolepis
Catostomus commersoni
Clinostomus funduloides
Cottus carolinae
Etheostoma blenniodes
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma duryi
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma jessiae
Etheostoma kennicotti
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma tennesseense
Fundulus olivaceous
Hybopsis amblops
Hypentelium nigricans
Icthyomyzon sp.
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Lythrurus faciolaris
Notropis telescopus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys obtusus
Semotilus atromaculatus
10 Table 2. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Turkey Creek.
FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT
ANNELIDA 0.7 Oligochaeta 2 COLEOPTERA 8.4 Dryopidae Helichus 2 Elmidae Optioservus larvae 3 Optioservus ovalis 2 Psephenidae Ectopria 4 Psephenus herricki 14 DIPTERA 16.4 Athericidae Atherix lantha 16 Chironomidae 31 Empididae 1 Tipulidae Limonia 1 EPHEMEROPTERA 13.7 Caenidae Caenis 4 Ephemerellidae Eurylophella 1 Ephemeridae Ephemera 6 Heptageniidae Stenonema femoratum 4 Isonychiidae Isonychia 26 HETEROPTERA 2.3 Gerridae Aquarius remigis 1♂ and 2♀ 3 Rhagovelia obesa 2♂, 1♀, 1 Veliidae nymph 4 MEGALOPTERA 6.7 Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus 3 Nigronia serricornis 17 ODONATA 6.7 Aeshnidae Boyeria grafiana 14 Cordulegasteridae Cordulegaster macultata 3 Corduliidae Helocordulia uhleri 1 Gomphidae Gomphus descriptus 1 Stylogomphus albistylus 1 PLECOPTERA 13.7 Perlidae Acroneuria abnormis 36 Leuctridae Leuctra 5 TRICHOPTERA 31.4 Glossosoma larvae and Glossosomatidae pupae 14 Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 32 Hydropsyche betteni/depravata 38 Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche pupae 3 Philopotamidae Chimarra 6 Uenoidae Neophylax pupa 1 Total 299
TAXA RICHNESS = 31 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 13 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 3.5 (FAIR-GOOD)
11 Table 3. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Hurricane Creek.
FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT AMPHIPODA 3.7 Gammaridae Gammarus minus 13 ANNELIDA 0.6 Oligochaeta 2 COLEOPTERA 30.7 Dryopidae Helichus 35 Dytiscidae Hydroporus blanchardi 1 Elmidae Macronychus glabratus 1 Optioservus larva 5 Optioservus ovalis 54 Psephenidae Psephenus herricki 11 DIPTERA 12.9 Athericidae Atherix lantha 9 Chironomidae larvae and pupae 22 Simuliidae larvae and pupa 4 Tipulidae Hexatoma 2 Limonia 1 Tipula 7 EPHEMEROPTERA 9.5 Baetidae Baetis 5 Heptageniidae Leucrocuta 1 Maccaffertium 8 Maccaffertium pulchellum 2 Stenacron interpunctatum 3 Isonychiidae Isonychia 13 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GASTROPODA 10.9 Pleuroceridae Elimia laqueata 30 Pleurocera sp. cf. P. acuta 8 HETEROPTERA 3.7 Corixidae 1 Gerridae Aquarius remigis 3♂, 1♀, 1 nymph 5 Rhagovelia obesa 3♂, 3♀, 1 Veliidae nymph 7 LEPIDOPTERA 0.3 Noctuidae Bellura 1 MEGALOPTERA 2.6 Corydalidae Nigronia serricornis 5 Sialidae Sialis 4
NEMATOMORPHA 1 0.3 ODONATA 2.3 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 4 Cordulegasteridae Cordulegaster macultata 2 Gomphidae Gomphus descriptus 1 Stylogomphus albistylus 1 PLECOPTERA 8.0 Perlidae Acroneuria early instars 2 Acroneuria abnormis 26 TRICHOPTERA 14.7 Glossosomatidae Glossosoma pupa 1 Goeridae Goera calcarata 4 Helicopsychidae Helicopsyche borealis 1 Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 19 Ceratopsyche morosa 2 Ceratopsyche slossonae 8 Hydropsyche betteni/depravata 5 Leptoceridae Triaenodes pupae 3 Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche pupa 1 Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax 1 Polycentropus 2 Uenoidae Neophylax pupae sp. 1 1 Neophylax acutus pupa 1 Neophylax sp. cf. N concinnus 1 Total 348 TAXA RICHNESS = 46 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 21 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 4.0 (GOOD)
12 Unnamed Tributary to Taylor Branch
Introduction
This tributary stream to Taylor Branch is located in Bradley County near the city of Ooltewah. Most of the land use in the surrounding watershed is residential or agricultural. We were primarily interested in evaluating the health of the stream and investigating the occurrence of Tennessee dace. No prior agency collections had been made in this stream.
Study Area and Methods
Our survey of this tributary was conducted near Tunnel Hill Road southeast of Ooltewah (Figure 2). The stream at this location was low grade, narrow, and severely entrenched in some locations. Remnants of a pond dam indicated that this portion of the stream had been impounded historically.
Figure 2. Sample site location for the survey conducted in the tributary during 2005.
Sample Site Lat: 35.03990 Long: -84.96498 25-May-05
13 Our evaluation of the fish A view of the tributary community was within our sample area. accomplished through an Note bank instability due Index of Biotic Integrity to cattle access. (IBI) survey. Benthic organisms were collected with kick nets during a timed survey. Analysis of the fish and benthic samples followed procedures developed by Karr et al. (1986) and Lenat (1993). At our sample location silt and cobble were dominant substrate components in pools comprising about 50% of the substrate. In riffles, bedrock and cobble were dominant substrates contributing 70% to the substrate composition. Riffles were most prevalent, comprising about 70% of the available habitat. Riparian zones within our survey site were severely impacted by tree removal and cattle grazing. Basic water quality measurements at this site revealed the following information: temperature 16.5 C, conductivity 170 µs/cm, flow 1.2 cfs and a pH of 6.3.
Results
We collected a total of 722 fish comprising eight species at our sample site (Table 4). No game species were collected at this site. The two most dominant species collected in our sample were the largescale stoneroller and creek chub. Together, these two species comprised 69% of the total number of fish in our sample. Only one darter species was collected here, the black darter. The only sucker species present was the white sucker. The most interesting collection made at this location, was Tennessee dace, which is deemed in need of management by the Agency. We did collect a hybrid which was apparently a cross between a Tennessee dace and creek chub. We have observed this in a few other locales where Phoxinus sp. and other minnows co-exist. There were two IBI metrics that had a substantial effect on lowering the overall score for this stream. These included the low percentage of trophic specialists and the absence of piscivores. All other metrics scored average or better resulting in an IBI score of 48 (good) (Table 5). We did not observe any anomalies on the fish we collected even though the potential for this occurence seemed good given the state of enrichment in the stream. The abundance of Tennessee dace was relatively high, although the number of juvenile fish was low. Much of the streams flow is contributed by groundwater which probably elevates the water quality despite the disturbances in the watershed. Our overall assessment of the habitat quality resulted in a score of 33 “poor”.
14 Table 4. Fish species occurrence for the unnamed tributary 2005. Site Code Species Tads Total Number Code 420051301 Campostoma oligolepis 45 61 420051301 Catostomus commersoni 195 4 420051301 Cottus carolinae 322 85 420051301 Etheostoma tennesseense 435 18 420051301 Lamprey sp. 7 1 420051301 Phoxinus tenneseensis 169 54 420051301 Rhynichthys obtusus 184 337 420051301 Semotilus atromaculatus 188 160 420051301 Semotilus x Phoxinus hybrid 2 Total 722
Table 5. Unnamed tributary Index of Biotic Integrity analysis. Metric Description Scoring Criteria Observed Score 1 3 5 Number of Native Species 1 1-2 >2 8 5 Number of Riffle Species <2 2 >2 2 3 Number of Pool Species Absent Present Present 5 % Two most Dominant Species >90 90-80 <80 69 5 Number of Headwater Intolerant Species <0 1 >1 2 5 Percent of Individuals as Tolerant >40 40-20 <20 22.7 3 Percent of Individuals as Omnivores >50 50-25 <25 9.0 5 Percent of Individuals as Specialists <5 5-10 >10 2.5 1 Percent of Individuals as Piscivores Absent Present Absent 1 Catch Rate <50 50-100 >100 273.4 5 Percent of Individuals as Lithophilic Spawners <25 25-50 >50 57.3 5 Percent of Individuals with Anomalies >5 5-2 <2 0 5 Total 48 (Good)
Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in our sample comprised 34 families representing 35 identified genera (Table 6). The most abundant group in our collection was the caddisflies comprising 38.5% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 42 taxa were identified from the sample of which 19 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “good” (4.0). We did collect one dragonfly species Gomphus (Genus A ) consanguis (Cherokee clubtail dragonfly) which is listed S1 (rare statewide). This species is currently distributed in six southeastern states (Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia) where it is listed as S1 (critically imperiled) in all but two (South Carolina and Virginia; imperiled (S2)).
15 Table 6. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from the unnamed tributary. ORDER FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT AMPHIPODA 0.9 Crangonyctidae Crangonyx 4 ANNELIDA 0.2 Oligochaeta 1 COLEOPTERA 0.7 Dryopidae Helichus adult 1 Elmidae Optioservus larvae 2 DIPTERA 18.4 Chironomidae 61 Dixidae Dixa 1 Simuliidae 9 Tabanidae Tabanus 2 Tipulidae Antocha larvae and pupa 4 Tipula 2 EPHEMEROPTERA 1.9 Baetidae Baetis 5 Heptageniidae Stenacron interpunctatum 2 Isonychiidae Isonychia 1 GASTROPODA 8.2 Physidae 11 Pleuroceridae 24 HETEROPTERA 1.2 Belostomatidae Belostoma testaceum 1 Gerridae Aquarius remigis male and female 2 Notonectidae Notonecta 1 Veliidae Rhagovelia obesa nymph 1 ISOPODA 13.3 Asellidae Caecidotea 1 Lirceus 56 MEGALOPTERA 0.2 Corydalidae Nigronia serricornis 1 ODONATA 1.4 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 1 Calopterygidae Calopteryx 3 Gomphidae Gomphus (Genus A) consanguis 1 Stylogomphus albistylus 1 PLECOPTERA 15.2 Nemouridae Amphinemura delosa/nigritta 1 Perlidae Eccoptura xanthenes 4 Perlesta 60 TRICHOPTERA 38.5 Glossosomatidae Agapetus pupa 1 Glossosoma larvae and pupae 51 Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 36 Hydropsyche betteni/depravata 32 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma pupa 1 Leptoceridae Triaenodes pupae 3 Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche luculenta group 8 Odontoceridae Psilotreta labida pupae 7 Philopotamidae Chimara 2 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila carolina 10 Uenoidae Neophylax concinnus 3 Neophylax consimilis 1 Neophylax etnieri 10 Total 429 TAXA RICHNESS = 42 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 19 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 4.0 (GOOD)
16 Discussion
The occurrence of Tennessee dace in this stream merits protection of the stream and the surrounding watershed. However, given the state of development and current land use practices this is unlikely to occur. With the amount of spring influence in this stream, the water quality may remain good enough to continue to support this species. Restricting cattle access to the stream would have the most pronounced impact on retaining the species diversity and improving the water quality.
Management Recommendations
1. Watershed protection.
2. Restrict cattle access to the stream.
17 Clinch River
Introduction
The Clinch River represents an important recreational resource for the state both in consumptive and non-consumptive uses. It provides critical habitat for threatened and endangered species and species of special concern. The river supports a diverse fish community and has been documented to host some 43 species of mussels (Ahlstedt 1986). Additionally, it supports one of east Tennessee’s better warmwater sport fisheries. The Clinch River has been the focus of numerous surveys and investigations conducted by both state and federal agencies with the major purpose of assessing and monitoring the fish and benthic communities. The Agency has made limited surveys of the river that focused primarily on collecting basic fish, benthic, and water quality data (Bivens 1988, Carter et al. 2000, 2003). Our survey of the Clinch River focused on re-evaluating the sport fish population originally sampled in 1999. Our 2005 assessment was derived from nine sample sites located between river mile 202 and river mile 152. After our initial evaluation in 1999, the Clinch River was put into a 3-year rotational schedule with eight other rivers in the region. Sport fish sampling sites were reduced to those that would best characterize these populations.
Study Area and Methods
The Clinch River originates in Virginia and flows in a southwesterly direction before emptying into Norris Reservoir near river mile 152. The river has a drainage area of approximately 3,838 kilometers2 (upstream of the reservoir). In Tennessee, all of the Clinch River flows through the Ridge and Valley province of east Tennessee coursing by the town of Sneedville before emptying into Norris Reservoir just northwest of Thorn Hill. Public access along the river is primarily limited to bridge crossings and small “pull-outs” along roads paralleling the river. There are several primitive launching areas for canoes or small boats and three developed launching areas managed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Kyles Ford, Sneedeville, Hwy. 25E Bridge).
Clinch River
18 Between April 19 and 20, 2005, we conducted nine fish surveys between the Virginia state line and Norris Reservoir (Figure 3). In our survey sites, the riparian habitat consisted primarily of wooded shorelines with interspersed agricultural fields. Submerged woody debri was fairly common in most of our sample areas. The river substrate was predominately boulder/cobble in riffle areas and bedrock with interspersed boulders/cobble in the pool habitat. Measured mean channel widths ranged from 41.6 meters to 71.5 meters, while site lengths fell between 190 meters and 890 meters (Table 7). Water temperatures ranged from 14.8 C to 19.5 C and conductivity varied from 225 to 270µs/cm (Table 7).
Figure 3. Site locations for samples conducted in the Clinch River during 2005.
1
Clinch River 4 3
21 22 25 23
32 27
Table 7. Physiochemical and site location data for samples conducted in the Clinch River during 2005. Site Code Site Quad River Latitude Longitude Mean Length Temp. Cond. Secchi Mile Width (m) C (m) (m) 420050601 1 Looney Gap 202 36.59361 -82.88944 44.6 376 15.5 240 1.4 420050603 3 Looney Gap 199 36.57667 -82.94139 41.6 381 16 250 1.4 420050604 4 Looney Gap 197.8 36.58139 -82.95444 50.6 190 17 250 1.4 420050621 21 Swan Island 172.5 36.47722 -83.28917 53 718 17 230 0.9 420050622 22 Swan Island 170.7 36.47528 -83.30306 71.5 480 17 230 0.9 420050623 23 Swan Island 169.6 36.46500 -83.30083 50 217 16 225 0.9 420050625 25 Swan Island 166.6 36.44583 -83.34917 63 890 15 225 0.9 420050627 27 Swan Island 164.5 36.42917 -83.35778 68.5 520 14.8 230 0.9 420050632 32 Howard Quarter 152.2 36.40139 -83.45250 71.5 413 19.5 270 1.4
Fish were collected by boat electrofishing in accordance with the standard large river sampling protocols (TWRA 1998). Fixed-boom electrodes were used to transfer 4-5 amps DC at all sites. This current setting was determined effective in narcotizing all target species (black bass and rock bass). All sites were sampled during daylight hours and had survey durations ranging from 900 to 926 seconds. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) values were calculated for each target species at each site. Length categorization indices were calculated for target species following Gabelhouse (1984).
19 Results
CPUE estimates for smallmouth bass averaged 27.1/hour (SD 15.2), while the mean rock bass estimate was 70.9/hour (SD 23.9) (Table 8). Unlike our 2002 survey, spotted bass and largemouth bass did return to our sample sites. The CPUE estimates for spotted bass and largemouth bass were 0.4 (SD 1.3) and 0.8 (SD 1.7). Comparatively, there was an overall increase in the mean catch rate of black bass species (49% for smallmouth bass) from our survey in 2005 (Figure 4). However, the 2005 catch did not surpass the value recorded in 1999, remaining 27% below that value. Likewise, the mean catch rate for rock bass increased 126.5% from our sample taken in 2002 and surpassed the 1999 value by 59%. Our catch most likely increased over the summer 2002 sample due to the timing of our sample. Spring and fall samples have been shown to more accurately reflect true population density and size structure when compared to summer month samples (June-August). Almost all of the sample sites showed increases in CPUE for both smallmouth bass and rock bass when compared to the 2002 survey.
Table 8. Catch per unit effort and length categorization indices of target species collected at nine sites on the Clinch River during 2005. Site Code Smallmouth Bass Spotted Bass Largemouth Bass Rock Bass CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE 420050601 12 - - 96 420050603 4 - - 68 420050604 40 - 4.0 68 420050621 20 - - 60 420050622 15.6 - 4.0 42.8 420050623 24 - - 120 420050625 44 - - 56 420050627 40 4.0 - 52 420050632 44 - - 76 MEAN 27.1 0.4 0.8 70.9 STD. DEV. 15.2 1.3 1.7 23.9 Length- Length- Length- Length- Categorization Categorization Categorization Categorization Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis
PSD = 40 PSD = 0 PSD = 50 PSD = 35.8 RSD-PREFERRED = 17.5 RSD-PREFERRED = 0 RSD-PREFERRED = 50 RSD-PREFERRED = 1.9 RSD-MEMORABLE = 10 RSD-MEMORABLE = 0 RSD-MEMORABLE =0 RSD-MEMORABLE = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0
20 Figure 4. Trends in mean catch rate of black bass and rock bass collected between 1999 and 2005 from the Clinch River.
80
70
60
50 1999 40 2002 2005 30
Mean Catch Rate (#/hour) (#/hour) Rate Catch Mean 20
10
0 Smallmouth Spotted Bass Largemouth Rock Bass Bass Bass Species
The size distribution of smallmouth bass between 1999 and 2005 changed somewhat among our nine sampling stations (Figure 5). Good recruitment for bass 125 mm and less indicated a good year class in 2004. The occurrence of quality size bass 250 mm and larger was higher in 2005 than previous samples. There was a higher frequency of larger fish as well, particularly in the 400 to 475 mm range. Although somewhat staggered when compared to the 1999 survey, the size distribution in 2005 did give a good representation of the population structure and revealed recruitment impacts to the fishery from the flooding encountered in 2003.
Figure 5. Length frequency distributions for smallmouth bass collected from the Clinch River between 1999 and 2005.
30 25
20 1999 15 2002 2005
Frequency 10 5 0 0 25 50 75 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 Length Group (mm)
21 The number of bass over 14 inches increased about 130 % over the two previous samples. We feel this is primarily due to the sample timing (spring) which has consistently resulted in higher catches of larger fish. Only one bass in the 20 inch class has been observed in our samples to date. It was collected in 1999 at site 1.
Length categorization analysis indicated the relative stock density (RSD) of preferred smallmouth bass (TL > 350 mm) was 17.5 (Table 8). RSD for memorable (TL > 430 mm) and trophy (TL > 510 mm) size bass were 10 and 0, respectively. The PSD of smallmouth bass (ratio of quality size bass to stock size bass) was 40. In comparison, the value for 2002 was substantially lower for bass in the preferred category (0.4). The value for memorable fish (1.7) was higher in 2005, while the value for trophy size bass remained at 0. Catch per unit effort estimates by RSD category in 1999 and 2002 indicated a substantial decline in the catch of sub- stock smallmouth bass (Figure 6). This value rebounded somewhat in 2005, slightly surpassing the value recorded in 2002. Overall, with the exception of the trophy category, the values recorded for quality smallmouth bass and larger substantially exceeded those reported from previous samples.
Figure 6. Relative stock density (RSD) catch per unit effort for smallmouth bass collected from the Clinch River between 1999 and 2005.
25
20
15 1999 10 2002 2005
CPUE (#/hour) 5
0 TL =>TL 180mm Stock TL =>TL 510mm Trophy TL =>TL 280mm Quality TL =>TL 350mm Preferred TL <=TL 179mm Sub-stock TL =>TL 430mm Memorable
22 Age and growth characteristics for the smallmouth bass population in the Clinch River were characterized in 1999 (Carter et al. 2000). For the most part, the Clinch River has had growth rates similar to other large river populations with the same age structure.
We did not collect otoliths from smallmouth bass in 2005, assuming that the values generated from the 1999 survey typify the general growth characteristics of this population. In general it takes a smallmouth bass in the Clinch River about 4.7 years to reach 305 mm (12 inches), and about 7.8 years to attain a length of 406 mm (16 inches).
There was only one spotted bass collected from the Clinch River in 2005. This fish was 151 mm in length and was collected in the lower reach of the river at site 27. Given the scarcity of spotted bass in the Clinch, no real inferences about their contribution to the fishery can be made. However, they do persist in the river and may offer some opportunity to anglers. Figure 7 portrays the distribution of lengths for spotted bass collected from the Clinch River between 1999 and 2005. Catch rate for spotted bass averaged 0.4/hour (SD 1.3).
Figure 7. Length frequency distributions for spotted bass collected from the Clinch River between 1999 and 2005.
4 3 1999 2 2002
Frequency 1 2005 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Length Group (mm)
Only two largemouth bass were collected during the 2005 survey (Figure 8). One at site 4 and one at site 22. These fish ranged from 247 mm to 408 mm. Due to the low abundance of largemouth bass in the Clinch, little can be said about population density and size structure. The catch rate for largemouth bass averaged 0.8/hour (SD 1.7).
Figure 8. Length frequency distributions for largemouth bass collected from the Clinch River between 1999 and 2005.
4
3 1999 2 2002 2005 Frequency 1
0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 Length Group (mm)
23 Individuals in the 100 to 200 mm range represented the majority of rock bass in our samples between 1999 and 2005 (Figure 9). The representation of rock bass in size classes above 100 mm increased substantially over our survey in 2002. Generally, our 2005 survey proved to be our best sample of rock bass since monitoring was initiated in 1999. We believe that our spring sample in 2005 allowed us to more effectively sample this species and aid us in more accurately depicting the population size structure.
Figure 9. Length frequency distributions for rock bass collected from the Clinch River between 1999 and 2005.
60 50 40 1999 30 2002 20 2005
Frequency 10 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 Length Class (mm)
Relative stock density (RSD) analysis indicated the RSD for preferred rock bass (TL > 230 mm) was 1.9 (0 in 2002). RSD for both memorable (TL > 280 mm) and trophy (TL > 330 mm) size rock bass was 0. The PSD of rock bass increased over our 2002 survey (20.5) to 35.8. Our catch values by RSD category increased substantially over the previous surveys (Figure 10). For the first time since we began monitoring we recorded rock bass in the preferred size category. Stock and quality size categories saw the largest increases when compared to the 1999 and 2002 values.
Figure 10. Relative stock density (RSD) catch per unit effort for rock bass collected from the Clinch River between 1999 and 2005.
70 60 50 1999 40 2002 30 2005 20
CPUE (#/hour) 10 0 TL => 100mm Stock TL => 180mm Quality TL => 330 mmTrophy TL <= 99mm Sub-stock TL => 230mm Preferred TL => 280 mmMemorable
24 As with smallmouth bass, we feel our timing of the sample is responsible for the observed increases. We are confident that by surveying these large river populations in the spring we are able to better characterize the true population size structure and density.
Because of our confidence in determining age and growth characteristics (based on previous samples) we did not collect any otolith samples from rock bass in 2002. Therefore, no mortality or potential population growth statistics could be calculated. Age and growth and mortality of rock bass in the Clinch River are assumed to be similar to those reported from our 1999 assessment (Carter et al. 2000).
Discussion
The Clinch River provides anglers with the opportunity to catch all species of black bass along with rock bass. Because of the low numbers of spotted and largemouth bass the Clinch River, it should not be considered to contain a sport fishery for these species.
The popularity of this riverine fishery has grown over the last few years and now hosts a good percentage of anglers from Kentucky. Currently we have no angler use/harvest data on the river to aid in evaluating the effects that angler use may or may not have on the sport fishery. It is imperative that we obtain this data in order to answer fisheries management questions, public inquiries, and aid in the development of regulations.
The occurrence of musky in the river warrants continued investigations. The consistent stockings made by the VAGF upstream of the state line could lead to the development of a fishery in the Tennessee portion of the Clinch River. According to Tom Hampton (VAGF) their stockings have been quite successful and have resulted in the establishment of a sport fishery. Recent Index of Biotic Integrity surveys by TVA have indicated that the Clinch River is in “good” condition based on data from two long-term monitoring stations.
Surveys on the Clinch River will be conducted on a three-year rotation in order to assess any changes in the fishery. Our return trip in 2008 will in all likelihood focus on the sample sites surveyed in 2005, providing no new or more efficient sampling scheme is developed.
Management Recommendations
1. Initiate an angler use and harvest survey.
2. Develop a fishery management plan for the river.
25 Williams Creek
Introduction
Williams Creek is located in Grainger County near the community of Washburn. The stream flows in a northwesterly direction before joining the Clinch River near mile 129. Agricultural runoff into the stream is the most prominent pollution influence in this stream. We were primarily interested in evaluating the relative health of the stream and developing a species list for TADS. No prior agency collections had been made in this stream.
Study Area and Methods
Our survey of Williams Creek (Figure 11) was conducted along Black Fox Road about 0.75 mi. upstream of Norris Reservoir. The stream at this location was moderately graded and was apparently influenced by a substantial volume of groundwater.
Figure 11. Sample site location for the survey conducted in Williams Creek during 2005.
Norris Reservoir
Sample Site Lat: 36.32759 Long: -83.63304 27-April-05
26 Williams Creek within our sample area
Our evaluation of the fish community was accomplished through an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) survey. Benthic organisms were collected with kick nets during a timed survey. Analysis of the fish and benthic samples followed procedures developed by Karr et al. (1986) and Lenat (1993). At our sample location, boulder and cobble were the dominant substrate components comprising about 50% of the substrate in the pools and about 50% in the riffles. Riffles dominated the habitat features contributing about 85% of the available habitat. Our sample site had a well-established riparian zone. Basic water quality measurements at this site revealed the following information: temperature 12.2 C, conductivity 238 µs/cm, flow 16.9 cfs and a pH of 6.5. There appeared to be some agricultural enrichment based on our observations within the watershed. Spring influence was also apparent based on stream vegetation and water volume.
Results
We collected a total of 91 fish comprising 17 Rock Bass collected in species at our sample site (Table 9). There were Williams Creek four game species collected at this site, which included green sunfish, bluegill, rock bass, and smallmouth bass. The two most dominant species collected in our sample were the largescale stoneroller and striped shiner. Together, these two species comprised 54% of the total number of fish in our sample. Four species of darters were collected,
27 greenside darter, rainbow darter, logperch and snubnose darter. Both the northern hog sucker and black redhorse were collected at this site although the northern hog sucker was the predominant species. There were three IBI metrics that had a substantial effect on lowering the overall score for this stream. These included the high percentage of omnivores in the population, the low percentage of trophic specialists, and the low catch rate. All other metrics scored fair or better and there was a low occurrence of anomalies on the fish collected. The high species richness encountered in this stream had the most dramatic positive influence on the overall rating. Overall, the IBI analysis indicated Williams Creek was in fair condition (IBI score = 42) (Table 10). The influence of spring inflow on this stream may be having a positive influence on the water quality and allowing the stream to continue to support the diverse fish assemblage even though there are apparent development disturbances and well established agriculture within the watershed. Our overall assessment of the habitat quality resulted in a score of 30.3 “fair”.
Table 9. Fish species occurrence for Williams Creek 2005. Site Code Species Tads Total Number Code 420050801 Ambloplites rupestris 342 1 420050801 Campostoma oligolepis 45 39 420050801 Cottus carolinae 322 6 420050801 Cyprinella spiloptera 57 2 420050801 Etheostoma blennioides 398 1 420050801 Etheostoma caeruleum 401 2 420050801 Etheostoma tennesseense 435 3 420050801 Hypentelium nigricans 207 9 420050801 Lepomis cyanellus 347 3 420050801 Lepomis macrochirus 351 4 420050801 Luxilus chrysocephalus 89 10 420050801 Micropterus dolomieu 362 1 420050801 Moxostoma duquesnei 224 1 420050801 Percina caprodes 464 1 420050801 Pimephales notatus 176 1 420050801 Rhinichthys obtusus 184 4 420050801 Semotilus atromacualtus 188 3 Total 91
Table 10. Williams Creek Index of Biotic Integrity analysis. Metric Description Scoring Criteria Observed Score 1 3 5 Number of Native Species <7 7-14 >14 17 5 Number of Darter Species <1 1 >1 4 5 Number of Sunfish Species less Micropterus <1 1 >1 3 5 Number of Sucker Species <1 1 >1 2 5 Number of Intolerant Species <1 1 >1 1 3 Percent of Individuals as Tolerant >34 34-19 <19 20 3 Percent of Individuals as Omnivores >45 45-24 <24 55 1 Percent of Individuals as Specialists <14 14-24 >24 8 1 Percent of Individuals as Piscivores <2 2-3.5 >3.5 2 3 Catch Rate <29 29-53 >53 8.8 1 Percent of Individuals as Hybrids >1 1-TR 0 0 5 Percent of Individuals with Anomalies >5 5-2 <2 1 5 Total 42 (Fair)
Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in our sample comprised 29 families representing 40 identified genera (Table 11). The most abundant group in our collection was the mayflies
28 comprising 55.7% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 43 taxa were identified from the sample of which 24 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “good” (4.3).
Table 11. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Williams Creek. ORDER FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT ANNELIDA 0.3 Oligochaeta 2 COLEOPTERA 3.9 Elmidae Macronychus glabratus adult 1 Stenelmis larvae and adult 3 Psephenidae Ectopria 2 Psephenus herricki 20 DIPTERA 7.7 Blephariceridae Blepharicera pupae 14 Chironomidae 24 Simuliidae 11 Tipulidae Tipula 2 EPHEMEROPTERA 55.7 Baetidae Baetis 109 Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 61 Eurylophella 10 Timpanago 1 Heptageniidae Epeorus rubidus/subpallidus 24 Leucrocuta 11 Maccaffertium early instars 13 Maccaffertium modestum 10 Stenacron interpunctatum 4 Isonychiidae Isonychia 124 Leptophlebiidae Habrophlebiodes 1 GASTROPODA 3.2 Pleuroceridae Elimia 21 HETEROPTERA 0.2 Gerridae Aquarius remigis adult 1 ISOPODA 9.5 Asellidae Lirceus 63 MEGALOPTERA 0.6 Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus 1 Nigronia serricornis 3 ODONATA 2.3 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 2 Calopterygidae Calopteryx 7 Gomphidae Gomphus early instar 1 Gomphus (Genus A) rogersi 3 Stylogomphus albistylus 2 PELECYPODA 1.5 Sphaeriidae Sphaerium 10 PLECOPTERA 3.8 Nemouridae Amphinemura delosa/nigritta 4 Peltoperlidae Tallaperla 2 Perlidae Acroneuria evoluta 1 Neoperla 2 Perlesta early instars 8 Perlodidae Isoperla 8 TRICHOPTERA 11.3 Glossosomatidae Glossosoma 1 Helicopsychidae Helicopsyche borealis 5 Ceratopsyche sparna 3 Cheumatopsyche 4 Hydropsyche rotosa 44 Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche probably guttifer 1 Polycentropodidae Polycentropus larvae and pupa 6 Uenoidae Neophylax etnieri 9 Neophylax pupae 2 Total 661 TAXA RICHNESS = 43 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 24 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 4.3 (GOOD)
29 Discussion
Williams Creek is typical of many rural streams flowing within agricultural landscapes. With the inflow of groundwater into this system, Williams Creek is at a slight advantage over other tributaries in this watershed. The ability to support the diversity observed can be attributed to the influx of relatively clean water and the maintenance of flows which maximizes the amount of available habitat throughout the year. The potential for this stream to receive limited stocking of trout could be feasible as access along the stream is good.
Management Recommendations
1. Consider an experimental stocking of trout to evaluate angler use and feasibility.
2. Periodically monitor this stream to determine relative health changes.
3. Encourage BMP’s within the watershed.
30 Powell River
Introduction
The remoteness of the Powell River makes it one of the premier warmwater rivers in east Tennessee. It offers the opportunity to take float trips without seeing another individual during the course of a day. The surroundings are appealing which makes a trip to the Powell well worth the drive. It is an important recreational resource for the state both in consumptive and non-consumptive uses. It provides critical habitat for threatened and endangered species and species of special concern. The river supports a diverse fish community and has been documented to host some 37 species of mussels (Ahlstedt 1986). It is one of only two rivers in the region having reaches designated as mussel sanctuaries. Additionally, it supports one of east Tennessee’s better warmwater sport fisheries. The Powell River has been the focus of numerous surveys and investigations conducted by other state and federal agencies with the major purpose of assessing and monitoring the fish and benthic communities. The Agency has made limited surveys of the river that focused primarily on collecting basic fish, benthic, and water quality data (Bivens 1988, Carter et al. 2000, 2003, 2004). Our survey of the Powell River focused on re-evaluating the sport fish population originally sampled in 1999. Our 2005 assessment was derived from ten sample sites located between river mile 115 and river mile 59. After our initial evaluation in 1999, the Powell River was put into a 3-year rotational schedule with eight other rivers in the region. Sport fish sampling sites were reduced to those that would best characterize these populations.
Study Area and Methods
The Powell River originates in Virginia and flows in a southwesterly direction before emptying into Norris Reservoir near river mile 54. The river has a drainage area of approximately 1,774 kilometers2. In Tennessee, all of the Powell River flows through the Ridge and Valley province of A view of the Powell River near river east Tennessee coursing by the town of mile 79 Harrogate before emptying into Norris Reservoir near the community of Authur. Public access along the river is primarily limited to bridge crossings and small “pull-outs” along roads paralleling the river. There are several primitive launching areas for canoes or small boats and one developed launching area managed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Mulberry Creek).
Between April 11 and 13, 2005, we conducted ten fish surveys between the Virginia state line and Norris Reservoir (Figure 12). In our survey sites, the riparian habitat consisted primarily of wooded shorelines with interspersed agricultural fields. Submerged woody debri and water willow were fairly common in most of our sample areas. The river substrate was
31 predominately boulder/cobble in riffle areas and bedrock with interspersed boulders/cobble in the pool habitat. Measured mean channel widths ranged from 29.5 meters to 52.0 meters, while site lengths fell between 290 meters and 649 meters (Table 12). Water temperatures ranged from 15 C to 19.5 C and conductivity varied from 280 to 310µs/cm (Table 12).
Figure 12. Site locations for samples conducted in the Powell River during 2005.
1 VA KY TN Powell River 5 TN 3 15 13 21 29 20 28 18
Norris Reservoir
Table 12. Physiochemical and site location data for samples conducted in the Powell River during 2005. Site Code Site Quad River Latitude Longitude Mean Length Temp. Cond. Secchi Mile Width (m) C (m) (m) 420050501 1 Back Valley 115 36.59472 -83.31444 29.5 290 15 310 1.5 420050503 3 Back Valley 112.1 36.58111 -83.33472 30 577 15 310 1.5 420050505 5 Back Valley 107.6 36.58194 -83.36194 33.5 480 15 310 1.5 420050513 13 Coleman Gap 91 36.54917 -83.47417 38.5 537 18 300 1.3 420050515 15 Coleman Gap 87.1 36.53972 -83.48028 39 649 19 300 1.3 420050518 18 Wheeler 81 36.51500 -83.51444 40 383 18 308 1.3 420050520 20 Wheeler 77.3 36.53139 -83.53389 38 570 18 300 1.2 420050521 21 Wheeler 75 36.53833 -83.54750 38.5 467 19.5 305 1.2 420050528 28 Middlesboro South 61 36.50528 -83.64861 52 452 16.5 280 1.3 420050529 29 Middlesboro South 59 36.52194 -83.65750 41.5 479 16.5 280 1.3
Fish were collected by boat electrofishing in accordance with the standard large river sampling protocols (TWRA 1998). Fixed-boom electrodes were used to transfer 4-5 amps DC
32 at all sites. This current setting was determined effective in narcotizing all target species (black bass and rock bass). All sites were sampled during daylight hours and had survey durations ranging from 900 to 940 seconds. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) values were calculated for each target species at each site. Length categorization indices were calculated for target species following Gabelhouse (1984).
Results
CPUE estimates for smallmouth bass averaged 41.7/hour (SD 24.2), while the mean rock bass estimate was 95.7/hour (SD 71.6) (Table 13). Unlike the previous survey in 2002, spotted bass (0.38/hour) and largemouth bass (0.79/hour) were collected from a few of the ten survey sites in 2005. Although present, the numbers were extremely low making any comparisons to previous surveys difficult. Comparatively, there was a significant increase (236%) in the catch of smallmouth bass and likewise rock bass exhibited a 26% increase over the value recorded in 2002 (Figure 13). However, the 2005 value for smallmouth bass did fall short of that recorded in 1999. Given that our survey was conducted in the spring, our dramatic increases were not unexpected.
Table 13. Catch per unit effort and length categorization indices of target species collected at ten sites in the Powell River during 2005. Site Code Smallmouth Bass Spotted Bass Largemouth Bass Rock Bass CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE 420050501 51.8 - - 31.9 420050503 36 - - 16 420050505 16 - - 124 420050513 99.1 - - 233.9 420050515 55.8 - 3.9 191.5 420050518 47.9 - - 55.9 420050520 36 - 4 116 420050521 20 - - 56 420050528 23.9 - - 39.9 420050529 30.6 3.8 - 91.9 MEAN 41.7 0.38 0.79 95.7 STD. DEV. 24.2 1.2 1.6 71.6 Length- Length- Length- Length- Categorization Categorization Categorization Categorization Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis PSD = 25.3 PSD = 0 PSD = 0 PSD = 30 RSD-PREFERRED = 5.6 RSD-PREFERRED = 0 RSD-PREFERRED = 0 RSD-PREFERRED = 0.83 RSD-MEMORABLE = 2.8 RSD-MEMORABLE = 0 RSD-MEMORABLE = 0 RSD-MEMORABLE = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 1.4 RSD- TROPHY = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0
33 Figure 13. Trends in mean catch rate of black bass and rock bass collected between 1999 and 2005 from the Powell River.
120
100
80 1999 60 2002 2005 40
20
Mean Catch Rate (#/hour) Catch (#/hour) Rate Mean 0 Smallmouth Spotted Bass Largemouth Rock Bass Bass Bass Species
The size distribution of smallmouth bass between 1999 and 2005 changed somewhat among our ten sampling stations (Figure 14). We did observe an increase in the number of bass 150 mm and greater, although our catch of bass less than this value was somewhat less than 2002. Generally, we observed good recruitment into size classes above 6 inches and were able to collect one bass that fell into the trophy category (20 inches). Overall we felt the size structure in 2005 was well represented although the 1999 distribution seemed to be somewhat “richer” particularly with regards to smaller size classes.
Figure 14. Length frequency distributions for smallmouth bass collected from the Powell River between 1999 and 2005.
30 25
20 1999 15 2002 2005 Frequency 10
5 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Length Group (mm)
34 The number of bass over 14 inches increased between the two sampling periods. Four bass 14 inches or greater were collected in 2005 compared to one bass in the 2002 sample. One bass in the 20-inch class was collected and represents the first to be recorded in this size class.
Length categorization analysis indicated the relative stock density (RSD) of preferred smallmouth bass (TL > 350 mm) was 5.6 (Table 13). RSD for memorable (TL > 430 mm) and trophy (TL > 510 mm) size bass were 2.8 and 1.4, respectively. The PSD of smallmouth bass (ratio of quality size bass to stock size bass) was 25.3. In comparison, the value for 2005 was slightly higher for bass in the preferred category when compared to 2002 and the collection of memorable and trophy size bass had not been accomplished in previous surveys. Catch-per- unit-effort estimates by RSD category in 2005 indicated an increase in every RSD category when compared to 2002. This was most likely related to the timing of our sample which decreased the probability of catching smaller size classes. The 2005 figures were well above those observed in 2002 and for the most part those seen 1999. The exception was in the sub- stock category where the 1999 value was about double that observed in 2005 (Figure 15).
Figure 15. Relative stock density (RSD) catch per unit effort for smallmouth bass collected from the Powell River between 1999 and 2005.
30
25
20 1999 15 2002 10 2005 CPUE (#/hour) (#/hour) CPUE 5 0 TL => 180mm Stock TL => 510mm Trophy TL => 280mm Quality TL => 350mm Preferred TL <= 179mm Sub-stock TL => 430mm Memorable
Age and growth characteristics for the smallmouth bass population in the Powell River were characterized in 1999 (Carter et al. 2000). For the most part, the Powell River has had growth rates somewhat slower than other large river populations with the same age structure. We did not collect otoliths from smallmouth bass in 2005, assuming that the values generated from the 1999 survey typify the general growth characteristics of this population. In general, it takes a smallmouth bass in the Powell River about 5.2 years to reach 305 mm (12 inches), and about 9.5 years to attain a length of 406 mm (16 inches).
35 There was only one spotted bass collected from the Powell River in 2005. This fish was 142 mm in length and was collected in the lower reach of the river at site 29. Given the scarcity of spotted bass in the Powell, no real inferences about their contribution to the fishery can be made. However, they do persist in the river and may offer some opportunity to anglers. Figure 16 portrays the distribution of lengths for spotted bass collected from the Powell River between 1999 and 2005. Catch rate for spotted bass averaged 0.38/hour (SD 1.2).
Figure 16. Length frequency distributions for spotted bass collected from the Powell River between 1999 and 2005.
4
3 1999 2 2002 2005 Frequency Frequency 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Length Group (mm)
Two largemouth bass were collected from the Powell River during the 2005 survey (Figure 17). One at site 15 and one at site 20. These fish ranged from 180 mm to 277 mm. Due to the low abundance of largemouth bass in the Powell, little can be said about population density and size structure. The catch rate for largemouth bass averaged 0.79/hour (SD 1.6).
Figure 17. Length frequency distributions for largemouth bass collected from the Powell River between 1999 and 2005.
4
3 1999 2 2002 2005
Frequency 1
0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 Length Group (mm)
Individuals in the 100 to 200 mm range represented the majority of rock bass in our samples between 1999 and 2005 (Figure 18). For the most part, the distributions among years were fairly similar. We did observe noticeable increases in the number of rock bass in the 175 mm size class and above during 2005. Length categorization analysis indicated the RSD
36 Figure 18. Length frequency distributions for rock bass collected from the Powell River between 1999 and 2005.
100 80 1999 60 40 2002 20 2005 Frequency 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 Length Class (mm)
for preferred rock bass (TL > 230 mm) was 0.83. RSD for both memorable (TL > 280 mm) and trophy (TL > 330 mm) size rock bass was 0. The PSD of rock bass was 30 which was a substantial increase over the value observed in 2002 (13.1) (Table 13). Catch per unit effort estimates by RSD category indicated the majority of our catch was stock size fish with fewer quality size rock bass represented in the sample (Figure 19). However, the value recorded in 2005 for quality size rock bass was considerably higher than the value observed in 2002 (186%). We did collect rock bass in the RSD-P category, which was a first for the samples conducted to date.
Figure 19. Relative stock density (RSD) catch per unit effort for rock bass collected from the Powell River between 1999 and 2005.
120 100 80 60 1999 40 2002
CPUE(#/hour) 2005 20 0 TL => 100mm Stock TL => 180mm Quality TL => 330 mmTrophy TL <= 99mm Sub-stock TL => 230mm Preferred TL => 280 mmMemorable
Because of our confidence in determining age and growth characteristics (based on previous samples) we did not collect any otolith samples from rock bass in 2005. Therefore, no mortality or potential population growth statistics could be calculated. Age and growth and
37 mortality of rock bass in the Powell River are assumed to be similar to those reported from our 1999 assessment (Carter et al. 2000).
Discussion
The Powell River provides anglers with the opportunity to catch all species of black bass along with rock bass. Because of the low numbers of spotted and largemouth bass in the Powell River, it should not be considered to contain a sport fishery for these species.
The popularity of this riverine fishery is continuing to grow as more anglers shift from reservoir habitats to rivers. This trend will undoubtedly continue as the use on reservoirs increases. This type of potential for exploitation of riverine fisheries requires angler use/harvest data collection in order to effectively manage the resource. It is imperative that we obtain this data in order to answer fish management questions, public inquiries, and aid in the development of regulations. Recent Index of Biotic Integrity surveys by TVA have indicated that the Powell River is in “good to excellent” condition based on data from one long-term monitoring station.
Overall the Powell River represents one of east Tennessee’s premier warmwater river resources. It provides anglers with the opportunity to catch good numbers of smallmouth bass and rock bass and has the potential of producing memorable catches (both in number and size). The surrounding landscape is as eye appealing as the wildlife that lives in and around the river. It provides an excellent escape for recreationists (consumptive and non-consumptive) who are looking for a river that offers relatively undisturbed surroundings and a diverse community of wildlife.
Surveys on the Powell River will be conducted on a three-year rotation in order to assess any changes in the fishery. Our return trip in 2008 will in all likelihood repeat those samples conducted in 2005.
Management Recommendations
1. Initiate an angler use and harvest survey.
2. Develop a fishery management plan for the river.
38 Little River
Introduction
Little River originates in Sevier County on the north slope of Clingmans Dome, in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. It flows in a northwesterly direction for about 95 kilometers, past Elkmont in the National Park, and Townsend, Walland, and Maryville in Blount County, and joins the Tennessee River near river mile 635.6. Fort Loudoun Reservoir, impounds the lower 6.8 miles of Little River with another 1.5 miles being impounded by the low head dam at Rockford (located at the backwaters of Fort Loudoun). In all, a little over eight lower river miles are impounded. Another 0.75 mile or so is impounded by Perrys Milldam downstream of Little River inside Great Walland, near river mile 22. A third low head dam is Smoky Mountains National Park located in Townsend near river mile 33.6. The river has a drainage area of approximately 982 km2 at its confluence with the Tennessee River. The upper reach of the river (upstream of Walland) is located in the Blue Ridge physiographic province, and then transitions into the Ridge and Valley province from Walland to Fort Loudoun Reservoir. Little River is a very scenic stream in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. There, it drains an area containing some of the most spectacular scenery in the southeastern United States. The Little River fishery within the National Park boundary is primarily wild rainbow and brown trout with smallmouth bass in the lower reaches. An excellent trout fishery exists, and is managed by the National Park Service. Little River’s gradient becomes moderate as it leaves the National Park and flows through the Tuckaleechee Valley from Townsend to Walland. Excellent populations of smallmouth bass and rock bass exist there, and rainbow trout are stocked in spring and fall as water temperatures allow. This portion of the river has many developed campgrounds and is a popular recreation destination for tourists. While not as developed as Pigeon Forge, the Townsend area has grown significantly over the past two decades. Downstream of Walland, Little River leaves the mountains and no longer displays the extreme clarity and attractive rocky bottom of its upper reaches. Here it enters the Ridge and Valley province and resembles the more typical large river habitat with lower gradient and large deep pools interspersed with shallow shoal areas. Downstream of Perrys Milldam, the fishery, while still primarily smallmouth bass and rock bass, declines in quality relative to the upstream reach. This is probably related to limited availability of preferred smallmouth bass habitat. Near the small community of Rockford, Little River flows into a surprisingly large (given the size of the stream) embayment of Fort Loudon Lake. The Little River forms the boundary between Blount County and Knox County for the last few miles of its course.
Little River represents an important recreational resource for the state both in consumptive and non-consumptive uses. It supports an active tubing/rafting industry and is an
39 important recreational resource for local residents and tourists alike. It is also the municipal water source of the cities of Alcoa and Maryville. It provides critical habitat for species of special concern and is home to over 50 species of fish (four listed as federally). Additionally, its upper reach supports one of east Tennessee’s better warmwater sport fisheries. It provides anglers with the opportunity to catch all species of black bass, rock bass, and even stocked rainbow trout when water temperatures allow. Our survey of Little River was primarily concerned with characterizing the sport fish populations and developing a sampling protocol for the river. This was our first intensive survey of the river which required varying techniques and equipment at different locations in the river.
Study Area and Methods
Little River near Walland
Little River nea
Our survey of Little River was confined between river mile 10 and 32 and consisted of 15 sites. All of our sample sites with the exception of 12-15 were located in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. Sites 12-15 were in the transitional zone between the Blue Ridge and the Ridge and Valley.
Public access along the river is primarily limited to bridge crossings and small “pull- outs” along roads paralleling the river. There are several primitive launching areas for canoes or small boats and one developed access area managed by the Agency (Perrys Mill). Between April 3 and 24, 2005, we conducted sport fish surveys between Townsend and Rockford (Figure 20). In our survey sites, the riparian habitat consisted primarily of wooded shorelines with interspersed agricultural fields. Submerged woody debri was fairly common in most of our
40 sample areas along with large boulder in the upper reaches. The river substrate was predominately boulder/cobble in riffle areas and bedrock with interspersed boulders/cobble in the pool habitat. The prevalence of boulders decreased somewhat as we proceeded downstream and the abundance of gravel and coble increased. Water temperatures ranged from 11 C to 17 C and conductivity varied from 30 to 87 µs/cm (Table 14).
Figure 20. Site locations for samples conducted in Little River during 2005.
11
10
9 8 7
6 5
4 3 2 15 1 14 12 13
Table 14. Physiochemical and site location data for samples conducted in Little River during 2005. Site Code Site Quad River Latitude Longitude Mean Length Temp. Cond. Secchi Mile Width (m) C (m) (m) 420050901 1 Kinzel Springs 26.6 35.70190 -83.81320 - - 11 31 1.7 420050902 2 Kinzel Springs 25.1 35.71550 -83.81870 - - 12 31 1.7 420050903 3 Kinzel Springs 24.6 35.72240 -83.81280 - - 13 40 1.7 420050904 4 Kinzel Springs 23.8 35.73050 -83.81550 - - 14.5 38 2.7 420050905 5 Kinzel Springs 22.6 35.74160 -83.82940 - - 14 40 2.7 420050906 6 Kinzel Springs 21.9 35.74920 -83.83700 - - 11.5 38 1.7 420050907 7 Wildwood 19.7 35.77180 -83.85190 - - 12.8 50 1.7 420050908 8 Maryville 17.6 35.78320 -83.88510 - - 13.5 70 1.7 420050909 9 Maryville 15.3 35.79710 -83.89400 - - 15 70 1.5 420050910 10 Maryville 14.1 35.80020 -83.88840 - - 16 75 1.7 420050911 11 Maryville 10.6 35.81880 -83.92520 - - 15 87 1.7 420050912 12 Kinzel Springs 32.1 35.67960 -83.75060 - - 16.5 32 2 420050913 13 Kinzel Springs 30.9 35.67880 -83.76700 - - 17 31 2 420050914 14 Kinzel Springs 28.8 35.68850 -83.79720 - - 17 30 2 420050915 15 Kinzel Springs 27.5 35.70250 -83.80380 - - 17 50 2
41 Fish were collected by boat electrofishing in accordance with the standard large river sampling protocols (TWRA 1998). Fixed-boom electrodes were used to transfer 2-3 amps DC at all sites. This current setting was determined effective in narcotizing all target species (black bass and rock bass). Additionally, efforts were made to identify non-target species subsequently encountered and compile a list for each survey site. All sites were sampled during daylight hours and had survey durations ranging from 522 to 1401 seconds. Catch-per-unit- effort (CPUE) values were calculated for each target species at each site. Length categorization indices were calculated for target species following Gabelhouse (1984).
Results
CPUE estimates for smallmouth bass averaged 33.5/hour (SD 25.9), while the mean rock bass estimate was 121.5/hour (SD 70.5) (Table 15). The CPUE estimates for spotted bass and largemouth bass were 1.9 (SD 4.3) and 0.2 (SD 0.9).
Table 15. Catch per unit effort and length categorization indices of target species collected at nine sites on Little River during 2005. Site Code Smallmouth Bass Spotted Bass Largemouth Bass Rock Bass CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE 420050901 96.9 - - 124.6 420050902 54.5 - - 217.9 420050903 37.9 - - 238.5 420050904 30.8 - - 143.9 420050905 25.6 - 3.7 43.9 420050906 - - - 41.4 420050907 23.4 3.7 - 88.0 420050908 6.4 - - 70.2 420050909 11.9 12.8 - 44.7 420050910 27.9 - - 95.4 420050911 58.6 11.4 - 239.6 420050912 64.0 - - 75.8 420050913 35.3 - - 200.0 420050914 23.4 - - 108.0 420050915 6.4 - - 90.2 MEAN 33.5 1.9 0.2 121.5 STD. DEV. 25.9 4.3 0.9 70.5 Length-Categorization Length- Length-Categorization Length-Categorization Analysis Categorization Analysis Analysis Analysis PSD = 42 PSD = 0 PSD = 0 PSD = 26.7 RSD-PREFERRED = 12 RSD-PREFERRED = 0 RSD-PREFERRED = 0 RSD-PREFERRED = 3.8 RSD-MEMORABLE = 4 RSD-MEMORABLE = 0 RSD-MEMORABLE = 0 RSD-MEMORABLE = 0.6 RSD- TROPHY = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0 RSD- TROPHY = 0
42
Figure 21. Trends in mean catch rate of black bass and rock bass collected from Little River in 2005.
140
120
100
80
60
40 Mean Catch Rate (#/hour) Rate Catch Mean 20
0 Smallmouth Bass Spotted Bass Largemouth Bass Rock Bass Species
Our observation of mean catch for sport species was not untypical for east Tennessee rivers. Our highest catches were associated with two species, smallmouth bass and rock bass (Figure 21). Spotted bass and largemouth bass followed suit with much lower densities and typical ranking (spotted bass usually higher than largemouth bass). The size distribution of smallmouth bass in Little River was fairly typical although the number of quality size bass appeared to be somewhat higher than other rivers in the region (Figure 22). Although our catch of juvenile bass was low, we did observe enough bass in these size categories to indicate reproduction and progressive recruitment into larger size classes.
Figure 22. Length frequency distribution for smallmouth bass collected from Little River during 2005.
30
25
20
15 Smallmouth Bass Frequency 10
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Length Group (mm)
43 The largest smallmouth bass we collected were in the 475 mm class (18 inches). Three fish in this size category were collected.
Length categorization analysis indicated the relative stock density (RSD) of preferred smallmouth bass (TL > 350 mm) was 12 (Table 15). RSD for memorable (TL > 430 mm) and trophy (TL > 510 mm) size bass were 4 and 0, respectively. The PSD of smallmouth bass (ratio of quality size bass to stock size bass) was 42. Our highest catch for the reported RSD categories was for bass of stock size (length > 180mm). We did observe a high number of bass in the sub-stock category which is relatively indicative of good reproduction. Overall, the catch for each respective category was fairly similar to other rivers in the region displaying a normal distribution among size categories (Figure 23).
Figure 23. Relative stock density (RSD) catch per unit effort for smallmouth bass collected from Little River in 2005.
30
25
20
15 CPUE (#/hour CPUE
10
5
0 TL <= 179mm TL => 180mm TL => 280mm TL => 350mm TL => 430mm TL => 510mm Sub-stock Stock Quality Preferred Memorable Trophy
We did not sample otoliths from smallmouth bass collected in Little River. Since we have no information pertaining to the age and growth of this population, subsequent samples need to include a sub-sample of fish for age and growth analysis.
There were only five spotted bass collected from the Little River in 2005. These fish ranged in length from 142 to 254 mm in length and were collected in the lower reaches of the river. Given the scarcity of spotted bass in Little River, no real inferences about their contribution to the fishery can be made. However, they do persist in the river and may offer some opportunity to anglers. Figure 24 portrays the distribution of lengths for spotted bass collected from Little River during 2005. Catch rate for spotted bass averaged 1.9/hour (SD 4.3).
44 Figure 24. Length frequency distribution for spotted bass collected from Little River during 2005.
4 3 2 1 Frequency 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Lenght Group (mm)
Only one largemouth bass was collected during the 2005 survey (Figure 25). This fish was 254 mm in length. Due to the low abundance of largemouth bass in this river, little can be said about population density and size structure. The catch rate for largemouth bass averaged 0.2/hour (SD 0.9).
Figure 25. Length frequency distribution for largemouth bass collected from Little River during 2005.
4 3 2 1
Frequency 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Length Group (mm)
Individuals in the 100 to 200 mm range 11 inch Rock bass collected represented the majority of rock bass in our from Little River Little River sample during 2005 (Figure 26). The collection of rock bass from Little River represents our highest catch (for the number of sites sampled) for this species in any of the rivers surveyed to date. We collected 479 rock bass from 15 sample sites with about 26% of these fish being quality size (7 inches) or larger. For the first time since large river sampling was initiated (1998) we were able to collect one rock bass considered to be of trophy size 297 mm (11.6 inches). This fish was very well
45 conditioned and had a weight of 312 grams (0.69 pounds). Although low in number, we did collect juvenile rock bass in the 70 mm class.
Figure 26. Length frequency distribution for rock bass collected from the Little River during 2005.
200 150 100 50
Frequency 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Length Class (mm)
Relative stock density (RSD) analysis indicated the RSD for preferred rock bass (TL > 230 mm) was 3.8. RSD for both memorable (TL > 280 mm) and trophy (TL > 330 mm) size rock bass was 0.6 and 0, respectively. The PSD (ratio of quality size to stock size) of rock bass was 26.7. Catch by RSD category illustrated most of the fish we collected were in the stock category (Figure 27). We did observe a good representation by quality size fish and did record a low percentage of rock bass above 280 mm (11 inches).
Figure 27. Relative stock density (RSD) catch per unit effort for rock bass collected from Little River during 2005.
140 120 100 80 60 40 CPUE (#/hour) CPUE (#/hour) 20 0 TL => 100mm Stock 100mm => TL TL => 180mm Quality 180mm => TL TL => 330 mm Trophy 330 mm => TL TL <= 99mm Sub-stock 99mm <= TL TL => 230mm Preferred 230mm => TL TL => 280 mm Memorable 280 mm => TL
46 Like smallmouth bass, we did not take any otoliths from rock bass collected in Little River. Future surveys of this river should include a sub-sample of otoliths from this species in order to evaluate the age and growth characteristics of the population.
Collaborative community assessments of Little River have been ongoing since the 1980’s. These surveys have primarily focused on evaluating relative health changes in the fish community. Two Index of Biotic Integrity surveys were conducted in July 2005 at Coulter’s Bridge (river mile 20) and Blotchside logperch collected Townsend (river mile 29.8). A from Little River total of 47 fish species were collected at the Coulters Bridge site while 26 were observed at Townsend. Overall, The IBI analysis indicated the fish community was in good to excellent condition at Coulters Bridge (IBI score 54). The condition of the fish community decreased somewhat at the upper most station, Townsend, although the rating of this reach of stream was still classified as good (IBI score 48). Several rare or endangered species of fish inhabit Little River, and thus, the protection of the watershed is a high priority of managing agencies and local conservation groups. Table 16 lists the species and number of fish collected at the two IBI stations.
Table 16. Fish species collected at two Little River IBI station during 2005. Site Species Number Collected 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Ambloplites rupestris 31 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Aplodinotus grunniens 4 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Campostoma oligolepis 53 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Cottus carolinae 33 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Cyprinella galactura 27 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Cyprinella spiloptera 10 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Cyprinus carpio 9 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Dorosoma cepedianum 12 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Erimystax insignis 4 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Etheostoma blennioides 11 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Etheostoma camurum 3 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Etheostoma jessiae 5 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Etheostoma rufilineatum 316 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Etheostoma tennessense 1 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Etheostoma zonale 9 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Fundulus catenatus 1 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Hybopsis amblops 159 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Hypentelium nigricans 27 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Ichthyomyzon sp. 2 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Lepisosteus osseus 2 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Lepomis auritus 77 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Lepomis cyanellus 19 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Lepomis macrochirus 45 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Luxilus chrysocephalus 1
47 Table 16. Continued. Site Species Number Collected 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Luxilus coccogenis 21 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Lythrurus lirus 5 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Micropterus dolomieu 5 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Micropterus punctulatus 2 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Micropterus salmoides 4 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Minytrema melanops 1 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Moxostoma anisurum 4 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Moxostoma carinatum 3 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Moxostoma duquesnei 57 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Moxostoma erythrurum 19 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Nocomis micropogon 9 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Notropis leuciodus 133 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Notropis photogenis 9 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Notropis rubellus 47 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Notropis telescopus 71 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Notropis volucellus 18 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Noturus eleutherus 1 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Percina aurantiaca 1 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Percina burtoni 1 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Percina caprodes 4 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Percina evides 11 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Percina macrocephala 1 420050916 (Coulter’s Bridge) Phenacobius uranops 3 Total 1291
420050917 (Townsend) Ambloplites rupestris 39 420050917 (Townsend) Campostoma oligolepis 38 420050917 (Townsend) Cottus carolinae 87 420050917 (Townsend) Cyprinella galactura 27 420050917 (Townsend) Etheostoma blennioides 5 420050917 (Townsend) Etheostoma rufilineatum 156 420050917 (Townsend) Etheostoma tennessense 10 420050917 (Townsend) Etheostoma zonale 1 420050917 (Townsend) Fundulus catenatus 2 420050917 (Townsend) Hybopsis amblops 29 420050917 (Townsend) Hypentelium nigricans 23 420050917 (Townsend) Ichthyomyzon greeleyi 4 420050917 (Townsend) Lampetra appendix 10 420050917 (Townsend) Lepomis auritus 5 420050917 (Townsend) Lepomis macrochirus 3 420050917 (Townsend) Luxilus chrysocephalus 3 420050917 (Townsend) Luxilus coccogenis 39 420050917 (Townsend) Micropterus dolomieu 7 420050917 (Townsend) Moxostoma duquesnei 8 420050917 (Townsend) Moxostoma erythrurum 1 420050917 (Townsend) Nocomis micropogon 11 420050917 (Townsend) Notropis leuciodus 300 420050917 (Townsend) Notropis photogenis 6 420050917 (Townsend) Notropis telescopus 191 420050917 (Townsend) Oncorhynchus mykiss 3 420050917 (Townsend) Percina evides 4 Total 1012
Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in our sample at Townsend comprised 35 families representing 47 identified genera (Table 17). The most abundant group in our collection was the mayflies comprising 35.2% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 51 taxa were identified from the sample of which 23 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “good” (4.2).
48 Table 17. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Little River at Townsend. ORDER FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT ANNELIDA 0.9 Oligochaeta 2 COLEOPTERA 13.7 Dryopidae Helichus adult 1 Elmidae Dubiraphia vittata adults 3 Macronychus glabratus adults 3 Optioservus trivittatus adult 1 Optioservus larva 1 Promoresia elegans larva & adults 4 Stenelmis larvae & adult 5 Gyrinidae Dineutus larvae 5 Psephenidae Psephenus herricki larvae & adults 7 DIPTERA 8.2 Chironomidae 15 Simuliidae 2 Tabanidae Tabanus 1 EPHEMEROPTERA 35.2 Baetidae Acentrella 6 Baetis 12 Caenidae Caenis 4 Ephemerellidae Serratella 2 Heptageniidae Epeorus rubidus/subpallidus 11 Leucrocuta 3 Maccaffertium early instars 4 Maccaffertum ithaca 23 Isonychiidae Isonychia 4 Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 3 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 2 Neoephemeridae Neoephemera purpurea 3 GASTROPODA 1.8 Planorbidae 1 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera 3 HETEROPTERA 4.6 Veliidae Rhagovelia obesa adults 10 HYDRACARINA 0.5 Hydracarina sp. 1 ISOPODA 0.5 Asellidae Caecidotea 1 MEGALOPTERA 1.8 Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus 2 Nigronia serricornis 2 ODONATA 11.9 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 15 Calopterygidae Calopteryx augustipennis 1 Hetaerina americana 2 Coenagrionidae Argia 1 Gomphidae Gomphus sp. (early instar) 1 Hagenius brevistylus 1 Stylogomphus albistylus 2 Macromiidae Macromia 3 PELECYPODA 0.9 Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 2 PLECOPTERA 13.7 Leuctridae Leuctra 10 Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 4 Perlidae Acroneuria abnormis 6 Perlesta 9 Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys dorsata 1 TRICHOPTERA 6.2 Brachycentridae Brachycentrus lateralis 7 Micrasema bennetti 1 Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche sparna 1 Cheumatopsyche 1 Lepidostmatidae Lepidostoma 1 Leptoceridae Oecetis avara 1 Triaenodes ignitus 2 Total 219 TAXA RICHNESS = 51 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 23 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 4.2 (GOOD)
49 Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in our sample at Coulter’s Bridge comprised 33 families representing 49 identified genera (Table 18). The most abundant group in our collection was the mayflies comprising 41.8% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 57 taxa were identified from the sample of which 27 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “good” (4.5).
Table 18. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Little River at Coulter’s Bridge. ORDER FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT ANNELIDA 2.9 Oligochaeta 7 COLEOPTERA 14.2 Dryopidae Helichus adult 1 Elmidae Dubiraphia adult 1 Maconychus glabratus adults 3 Optioservus larva 1 Optioservus ovalis adult 1 Optioservus trivittatus adults 6 Promoresia elegans adults 7 Stenelmis adult 1 Gyrinidae Dineutus discolor adults 2 Dineutus larva 1 Psephenidae Psephenus herricki 10 DIPTERA 8.4 Athericidae Atherix lantha 1 Chironomidae 10 Simuliidae 7 Stratiomyidae Allognosta 1 Tipulidae Antocha 1 EPHEMEROPTERA 41.8 Baetidae Acentrella 2 Baetis 13 Procloeon 1 undetermined 2 Caenidae Caenis 1 Ephemerellidae Drunella 1 Eurylophella 2 Serratella 2 Heptageniidae Epeorus rubidus/subpallidus 6 Macaffertium early instars 9 Macaffertium ithaca 4 Macaffertium mediopunctatum 22 Macaffertium probably modestum 1 Stenacron pallidum 2 Isonychiidae Isonychia 27 Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 4 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 GASTROPODA 6.7 Ancylidae Ferrissia 1 Pleuroceridae Leptoxis 13 Pleurocera 2 HETEROPTERA 1.3 Gerridae Aquarius remigis male 1 Veliidae Rhagovelia obesa male and female 2 MEGALOPTERA 2.9 Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus 4 Nigronia serricornis 3 ODONATA 3.8 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 2 Coenagrionidae Argia 1 Gomphidae Gomphurus lineatifrons 1 Gomphus lividus 1 Hylogomphus viridifrons 1 Stylogomphus albistylus 2 Macromiidae Macromia 1
PELECYPODA Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 2 0.8
50 Table 18. Continued. PLECOPTERA 3.3 Leuctridae Leuctra 2 Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 1 Perlidae Acroneuria early instar 1 Perlesta 4 TRICHOPTERA 13.8 Brachycentridae Brachycentrus lateralis 5 Micrasema wataga 1 Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche morosa 1 Ceratopsyche sparna 2 Cheumatopsyche 15 Hydropsyche betteni/depravata 1 Hydropsyche venularis 7 Leptoceridae Oecetis 1 Total 239 TAXA RICHNESS = 57 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 27 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 4.5 (GOOD)
Discussion
Little River provides anglers with the opportunity to catch all species of black bass along with rock bass. Because of the low numbers of spotted and largemouth bass in Little River, it should not be considered to contain a viable sport fishery for these species.
The river represents an outstanding resource in the quality of the water and the species that inhabit it. With the growing development in the watershed it will be imperative to monitor activities such that mitigation measures can be taken to ensure that the river maintains its outstanding water quality and aesthetic value. Continued efforts by the watershed group will continue to play an important role in the management of the watershed and serve as a “watchdog” for unregulated activities.
Trout stocking during suitable months is very popular for residents and non-residents visiting the area. This program should continue at the current level unless use dictates the need for program expansion.
TWRA should continue to be involved with the cooperative community assessment surveys each year. These are important indicators of the health of one of the regions best streams and serves as a benchmark in evaluating other streams of similar size and character. Sport fishery surveys on Little River will be conducted on a three-year rotation in order to assess any changes in the fishery. Our return trip in 2008 will in all likelihood focus on the sample sites surveyed in 2005, providing no new or more efficient sampling scheme is developed.
Management Recommendations
1. Initiate an angler use and harvest survey.
2. Develop a fishery management plan for the river.
3. Cooperate with the local watershed organization to protect and enhance the river and its tributaries.
51 Beaver Creek
Introduction
Beaver Creek located just west of Jefferson City was surveyed in 2005 at the request of TWRA’s Enviromental Services Division. The stream flows in a northwesterly direction before entering the Holston River near Mitchell Bend. The geology underlying Beaver Creek is karst with rich deposits of zinc. Mining for zinc and to a lesser extent limestone has been an active industry historically, but in recent years has declined due to lower demand for products produced from these mines. We were primarily interested in evaluating outfall from these mining operations and assessing impacts to the stream. The Tennessee Valley Authority conducted one survey of this stream in 2003, near our downstream site. One historical Agency collection was made in Beaver Creek in 1975.
Study Area and Methods
Our surveys of Beaver Creek (Figure 28) were conducted at the bridge crossing on Hwy. 11E (Site 1) and just below the bridge crossing on Beaver Creek Road (Site 2). Our survey at Beaver Creek Road was in close proximity to the area surveyed by the TVA in 2003.
Figure 28. Sample site locations for the surveys conducted in Beaver Creek during 2005.
Holston River
Beaver Creek Site 2 Lat: 36.08159 Long: -83.62689 22-June-05
Beaver Creek Site 1 Lat: 36.07626 Long: -83.62674 20-June-05
52 Our evaluation of the fish community was accomplished through an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) survey. Benthic organisms were collected with kick nets during a timed survey. Analysis of the fish and benthic samples followed procedures developed by Karr et al. (1986) and Lenat (1993). At our upstream sample location (site 1) silt/sand and gravel were the dominate substrate components in the pools, comprising about 70% of the substrate. In the riffle Beaver Creek site 1 habitat, substrate was primarily gravel and cobble (60%). At our downstream location (site 2) silt and sand contributed about 50% to the overall substrate composition in the pools, while gravel and cobble were most notable in the riffles (55%). At both locations, pools were the dominant habitat feature contributing 60% of the available habitat at site 1 and about 80% at site 2. The riparian zones at both sites had been altered. However, our upstream location was almost entirely devoid of woody vegetation in about half of the survey reach. At the downstream location the impact to the riparian zone was not as dramatic although the corridor of natural vegetation along the stream had been significantly reduced on both sides of the stream. Water turbidity was high at both locations and was most likely related to agricultural disturbances in the watershed and mine seepage from surrounding groundwater Beaver Creek site 2 upwellings. Basic water quality measurements at site 1 revealed the following information: temperature 21 C, conductivity 440 µs/cm, flow 10.8 cfs, and a pH of 6.2. Water quality conditions at site 2 were similar. Here the temperature was 20 C, conductivity 462 µs/cm, flow 14.0 cfs, and a pH of 6.5. Like many other streams in the area enrichment due to agricultural run- off was evident. As we investigated further upstream we noticed several areas where cattle had access to the stream.
Results
We collected a total of 363 fish comprising 14 species at site 1 and 161 fish representing 12 species at sample site 2 (Table 19). The two most common species collected at both of our sample sites were the largescale stoneroller and green sunfish. Together, these two species comprised 45% of the total number of fish collected at site 1 and 39% at site 2. Two darter species were collected at site 1, snubnose darter and greenside darter. At site 2 the greenside darter was the only darter species encountered. Suckers collected from the survey sites included
53 northern hog sucker, golden redhorse, and white sucker. The preponderance of hybrid sunfish was somewhat unusual as we observed at least three intergrades between green sunfish, redbreast sunfish, and bluegill. Rock bass was the only other sunfish species observed in our survey sites. There were several IBI metrics that had a substantial effect on lowering the overall score for this stream. At site 1, the low number of intolerant species and the high percentage of hybrids had the greatest influence on lowering the score. At site 2, the high percentage of tolerant species, low number of intolerant species, low percentage of piscivores and trophic specialists had the most influence in decreasing the overall IBI score.
Table 19. Fish species occurrence for Beaver Creek 2005. Site Code Species Tads Code Total Number 420051001 Ambloplites rupestris 342 11 420051001 Campostoma oligolepis 45 109 420051001 Catostomus commersoni 195 1 420051001 Cottus carolinae 322 42 420051001 Cyprinus carpio 62 1 420051001 Etheostoma blenniodes 398 36 420051001 Etheostoma tenneseense 435 31 420051001 Hypentelium nigricans 207 13 420051001 Lepomis auritus 346 18 420051001 Lepomis cyanellus 347 54 420051001 Lepomis hybrid (bluegill x green) 345 2 420051001 Lepomis hybrid (bluegill x redbreast) 345 1 420051001 Lepomis hybrid (redbreast x green) 345 3 420051001 Lepomis macrochirus 351 8 420051001 Luxilus chrysocephalus 89 30 420051001 Luxilus coccogenis 90 1 420051001 Moxostoma erythrurum 225 2 Total 363
420051002 Ambloplites rupestris 342 2 420051002 Campostoma oligolepis 45 26 420051002 Cottus carolinae 322 16 420051002 Etheostoma blenniodes 398 6 420051002 Etheostoma tenneseense 435 9 420051002 Gambusia affinis 309 12 420051002 Hypentelium nigricans 207 10 420051002 Lepomis auritus 346 5 420051002 Lepomis cyanellus 347 37 420051002 Lepomis hybrid (bluegill x green) 345 4 420051002 Lepomis hybrid (bluegill x redbreast) 345 4 420051002 Lepomis hybrid (green x redbreast) 345 2 420051002 Lepomis macrochirus 351 6 420051002 Luxilus chrysocephalus 89 21 420051002 Moxostoma erythrurum 225 1 Total 161
54 Table 20. Beaver Creek Index of Biotic Integrity analysis (Site 1).
Metric Description Scoring Criteria Observed Score 1 3 5 Number of Native Species <10 10-19 >19 12 3 Number of Darter Species <2 2 >2 2 3 Number of Sunfish Species less Micropterus <2 2 >2 3 5 Number of Sucker Species <2 2 >2 3 5 Number of Intolerant Species <2 2 >2 1 1 Percent of Individuals as Tolerant >33 33-17 <17 23.4 3 Percent of Individuals as Omnivores >40 40-21 <21 38.2 3 Percent of Individuals as Specialists <18 18-35 >35 18.7 3 Percent of Individuals as Piscivores <2 2-4 >4 3.0 3 Catch Rate <22.6 22.6-45.1 >45.1 42.1 3 Percent of Individuals as Hybrids >1 1-TR 0 1.6 1 Percent of Individuals with Anomalies >5 5-2 <2 1.9 5 Total 38 (Poor-Fair)
Table 21. Beaver Creek Index of Biotic Integrity analysis (Site 2).
Metric Description Scoring Criteria Observed Score 1 3 5 Number of Native Species <10 10-19 >19 10 3 Number of Darter Species <2 2 >2 2 3 Number of Sunfish Species less Micropterus <2 2 >2 3 5 Number of Sucker Species <2 2 >2 2 3 Number of Intolerant Species <2 2 >2 1 1 Percent of Individuals as Tolerant >33 33-17 <17 36.0 1 Percent of Individuals as Omnivores >40 40-21 <21 29.1 3 Percent of Individuals as Specialists <18 18-35 >35 9.3 1 Percent of Individuals as Piscivores <2 2-4 >4 1.2 1
Catch Rate <22.6 22.6-45.1 >45.1 29.0 3 Percent of Individuals as Hybrids >1 1-TR 0 6.2 1 Percent of Individuals with Anomalies >5 5-2 <2 0 5 Total 30 (Poor)
Overall, the IBI analysis indicated Beaver Creek was in poor to fair condition (IBI score = 38) at site 1 (Table 20). Conditions did not improve at our downstream station as the IBI scored dropped eight points to 30 (Table 21). This resulted in the classification of the stream being downgraded to “poor”. Based on the evaluation reported by TVA in 2003 the stream at site 2 has degraded quite substantially over the two year period. In 2003, TVA recorded 15 native species and had an overall IBI score of 40 (fair), which was 10 points higher than our value in 2005. They did collect one additional darter species that we did not see (redline darter) as well as spotted bass and black redhorse which all contributed to increasing the overall score. Based on our visual observations we were very disappointed with the quality of the habitat at site 2 and for the most part at site 1 although there was some improvement above the 11E crossing. Our visually based habitat assessment rated site 1 a “poor” with a score of 40.2, whereas, site 2 received a score of 45.4, resulting in a classification of “very poor”.
55 Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in our sample at site 1 comprised 26 families representing 27 identified genera (Table 22). The most abundant group in our collection was the caddisflies comprising 36.3% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 34 taxa were identified from the sample of which 8 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “fair/fair- good” (2.8).
Table 22. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Beaver Creek Site 1. ORDER FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT AMPHIPODA 0.3 1 ANNELIDA 1.3 Oligochaeta 4 COLEOPTERA 7 Elmidae Dubiraphia larva and adults 7 Stenelmis larvae and adults 15 DIPTERA 2.5 Chironomidae 7 Tipulidae Hexatoma 1 EPHEMEROPTERA 15.6 Baetidae Baetis 7 Ephemeridae Hexagenia 4 Maccaffertium 14 Heptageniidae Stenacron interpunctatum 13 Isonychiidae Isonychia 11 GASTROPODA 10.5 Physidae 4 Planorbidae 1 Pleuroceridae Elimia 24 Pleurocera 4 HETEROPTERA 1.3 Corixidae 1 Gerridae Aquarius remigis adult female 1 Veliidae Rhagovelia obesa adult male and female 2 ISOPODA 7 Asellidae Lirceus 22 MEGALOPTERA 3.8 Corydalidae Nigronia serricornis 10 Sialidae Sialis 2 ODONATA 9.9 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 9 Calopterygidae Calopteryx 5 Coenagrionidae Argia 2 Gomphidae Gomphus (Genus A) consanguis 12 Gomphus lividus 1 Hagenius brevistylus 2 PELECYPODA 4.5 Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 1 Sphaeriidae Pisidium 2 Sphaerium 10 Unionidae Villosa iris 1 TRICHOPTERA 36.3 Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 39 Hydropsyche betteni/depravata 70 Uenoidae Neophylax etnieri 5 Total 314 TAXA RICHNESS = 34 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 8 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 2.8 (FAIR/FAIR-GOOD)
56 Benthic macroinvertebrates collected at site 2 comprised 22 families representing 31 identified genera (Table 23). The most abundant group in our collection was the caddisflies comprising 32.3% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 34 taxa were identified from the sample of which 11 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “fair/good” (3.2).
Table 23. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Beaver Creek Site 2. ORDER FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT ANNELIDA 0.5 Oligochaeta 1 Tubificidae Branchiura sowerbyi 1 COLEOPTERA 13.6 Elmidae Dubiraphia adults 11 Macronychus glabratus adults 3 Stenelmis larvae and adults 36 DIPTERA 5.2 Chironomidae 11 Tipulidae Antocha 1 Hexatoma 7 EPHEMEROPTERA 18.2 Baetidae Baetis 10 Ephemeridae Ephemera 4 Hexagenia 13 Heptageniidae Maccaffertium early instars 5 Maccaffertium sp. 7 Stenacron interpunctatum 14 Isonychiidae Isonychia 14 GASTROPODA 7.6 Pleuroceridae Elimia 25 Pleurocera 3 HETEROPTERA 0.3 Veliidae Rhagovelia obesa adult 1 ISOPODA 10.6 Asellidae Caecidotea 1 Lirceus 38 MEGALOPTERA 2.2 Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus 2 Nigronia serricornis 2 Sialidae Sialis 4 ODONATA 8.2 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 11 Calopterygidae Calopteryx 9 Gomphidae Dromogomphus spinosus 2 Gomphus (Genus A) consanguis 5 Gomphus lividus 2 Hagenius brevistylus 1 PELECYPODA 1.4 Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 5 TRICHOPTERA 32.3 Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 84 Hydropsyche betteni/depravata 22 Leptoceridae Triaenodes ignitus larvae and pupa 7 Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche 1 Philopotamidae Chimara 5 Total 368 TAXA RICHNESS = 34 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 11 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 3.2 (FAIR/GOOD)
The Cherokee Clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus (Genus A) consanguis) listed as S1 (critically imperiled) was collected at both survey sites. This species was only collected in one other stream during 2005.
57 Discussion
Beaver Creek is in a situation where pollutants are entering the stream on two fronts. The agricultural use within the watershed is a constant influence that has increased the turbidity of the stream and introduced significant amounts of sediment as well. Secondly, the influence that historical and present mining activity has had and is having on the stream was apparent. In the 1975 survey of the stream, TWRA personnel did illustrate a higher abundance of sport species (rock bass and redbreast sunfish) in a section of stream upstream of the zinc mine. Similarly there was a documented decline in the number and species composition of sport fish below the mine area. Groundwater upwelling from mine impacted aquifers as well as surface runoff from the mine sites continues to influence this stream. Although undocumented, we expect there is some improvement in the condition of the habitat further upstream in the watershed.
Management Recommendations
1. Development of a watershed council involving private, local, state and federal entities might prove beneficial in improving conditions within the watershed.
2. Periodically monitor this stream to determine relative health changes.
58 Doe Creek
Introduction
Doe Creek originates just west of Mountain City and flows southwesterly through Doe Valley before entering the Watauga Reservoir near the community of Doeville. Doe Creek is one of east Tennessee’s premier wild trout streams and numerous surveys have been conducted in the stream over the last decade (Habera et al. 2006). Historically there was a run of wild rainbow trout from Watauga Reservoir that for a short period of time was a popular sport fishery for residents and non-residents alike. Doe Creek is unique among wild trout stream in that its productivity is somewhat higher than most other trout streams in the region (geologically influenced) and a substantial portion of its flow is contributed by groundwater. Recently, there has been controversy over the use of the stream by the city of Mountain City. Water withdrawal from Lowe Spring (major contributor to Doe Creek’s flow) by Mountain City was permitted by the state and has been ongoing since 2002. Recent requests from the city have indicated additional water needs, which if allowed, could negatively influence the fish community downstream of the spring. Our survey of Doe Creek was targeted at assessing the fish community downstream of Doeville at the request of a local resident. Recently, there have been plans to construct an Asphalt plant in close proximity to the stream and concerns over the impact this may have to stream were brought to the attention of the Agency. TVA surveyed Doe Creek in 1994 just downstream of our survey site in 2005. Our primary goal in surveying Doe Creek was to gather some baseline information prior to the construction of the plant and compare our finding with those reported by TVA in 1994 (TVA 1998).
Study Area and Methods
Our survey of Doe Creek (Figure 29) was conducted along Hwy 167 at the TWRA roadside fishing access. Agricultural operations within the watershed are prevalent, although not extensive. For the most part, cattle are fairly restricted from the stream, although a substantial portion of the riparian zone has been altered on one or both sides of the stream along its entirety. Our evaluation of the fish community was accomplished through an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) survey. Benthic organisms were A view of Doe collected with kick nets during a timed Creek within our survey. Analysis of the fish and sample area. benthic samples followed procedures developed by Karr et al. (1986) and Lenat (1993).
59 At our sample location gravel and cobble were the dominant substrate components in pools comprising about 60% of the substrate. In the riffle areas cobble and bedrock were dominant accounting for 70% of the available substrate. Pools dominated the habitat features contributing about 60% of the available habitat. We did notice an unusual amount of bedload movement within our survey site. There were numerous A depositional gravel bar within depositonal areas of gravel as our sample area. illustrated in the photo. There was some alteration of the riparian zones especially on the left descending bank, mainly by activities associated with residential development. Stream bank erosion was minimal, although there were a few “raw” areas within our survey reach. Basic water quality measurements at this site revealed the following information: temperature 16 C, conductivity 97 µs/cm, and a pH of 6.2. The discharge for the stream was calculated to be 75 cfs.
Figure 29. Doe Creek survey location 2005.
Sample Site Lat: 36.38279 Long: -81.95721 22-April-05
Watauga Reservoir
60 Results
We collected a total of 264 fish representing ten species at our sample site (Table 23). There were two game species collected at this site, which included the bluegill and rainbow trout. The two most dominant species collected in our sample were the mottled sculpin and western blacknose dace. Together, these two species comprised 65% of the total number of fish in our sample. Two darter species were collected from the stream, snubnose darter and fantail darter. Two of the IBI metrics had a substantial effect on lowering the overall score for this stream. These included the low percentage of trophic specialists and the low percentage of piscivores.
Table 23. Fish species occurrence for Doe Creek 2005. Site Code Species Tads Total Number Code 420050701 Campostoma anomalum 45 28 420050701 Catostomus commersoni 195 1 420050701 Cottus bairdi 321 114 420050701 Etheostoma flabellare 411 42 420050701 Etheostoma simoterum 435 2 420050701 Hypentelium nigricans 207 2 420050701 Lepomis macrochirus 351 1 420050701 Oncorhynchus mykiss 279 14 420050701 Rhynichthys obtusus 184 57 420050701 Semotilus atromaculatus 188 3 Total 264
Table 24. Doe Creek Index of Biotic Integrity analysis. Metric Description Scoring Criteria Observed Score 1 3 5 Number of Native Species <8 8-15 >15 9 3 Number of Darter Species <1 1 >1 2 5 Number of Sunfish Species less Micropterus <1 1 >1 1 3 Number of Sucker Species <1 1 >1 1 3 Number of Intolerant Species <1 1 >1 2 5 Percent of Individuals as Tolerant >30 30-15 <15 1.6 5 Percent of Individuals as Omnivores >25 25-12 <12 11.2 5 Percent of Individuals as Specialists <25 25-50 >50 17.6 1 Percent of Individuals as Piscivores <2 2-4 >4 0 1 Catch Rate <8 8-15 >15 40.0 5 Percent of Individuals as Hybrids >1 1-Tr 0 0 5 Percent of Individuals with Anomalies >5 5-2 <2 0.4 5 Total 46 (Fair-Good)
Overall, the IBI analysis indicated Doe Creek was in fair to good condition (IBI score = 46) (Table 24). Although not very diverse, Doe Creek had several metrics that scored well. In comparison the 1994 TVA evaluation resulted in a score of 42 (fair). Between the two samples scoring criteria changed somewhat due to developments in techniques and increased data from Blue Ridge streams. When the 1994 data was subjected to the revised criteria used in the 2005 analysis, Doe Creek scored 46. Based on this comparison, the health of Doe Creek has remained relatively unchanged since the initial survey in 1994. Our visual assessment of the habitat resulted in a score of “fair” 27. This was primarily based on the state of the riparian zones and the amount of bed load movement we observed at our sample site.
61 Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in our sample comprised 37 families representing 45 identified genera (Table 25). The most abundant group in our collection was the mayflies
Table 25. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Doe Creek. ORDER FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT ANNELIDA 0.4 Oligochaeta 2 COLEOPTERA 0.8 Elmidae Dubiraphia larva 1 Stenelmis adult 1 Psephenidae Psephenus herricki 1 Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus bicolor larva 1 DIPTERA 12.4 Blephariceridae Blepharicera larvae and pupae 20 Chironomidae 32 Simuliidae 1 Tipulidae Antocha 4 Hexatoma 3 Pseudolimnephila 1 Tipula 3 EPHEMEROPTERA 42.9 Baetidae Acentrella 4 Baetis 15 Baetiscidae Baetisca berneri 1 Ephemerellidae Drunella cornuta/cornutella 4 Ephemerella 105 Eurylophella 12 Ephemeridae Ephemera 4 Heptageniidae Epeorus rubidus/subpallidus 9 Maccaffertium early instars 19 Maccaffertium ithaca 14 Stenacron interpunctatum 19 Isonychiidae Isonychia 5 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 10 GASTROPODA 4.7 Physidae 5 Pleuroceridae 19 HETEROPTERA 0.2 Gerridae Aquarius remigis female 1 MEGALOPTERA 0.4 Corydalidae Nigronia serricornis 1 Sialidae Sialis 1 ODONATA 2.7 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 3 Calopterygidae Calopteryx 7 Gomphidae Gomphus early instar 1 Lanthus vernalis 2 Stylurus early instar 1 PELECYPODA 0.6 Sphaeriidae 3
PLECOPTERA 7.2 Chloroperlidae Alloperla 2 Nemouridae Amphinemura delosa/nigritta 3 Perlidae Acroneuria carolinensis 2 Paragnetina immarginata 11 Perlodidae Isoperla dicala 1 Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) biloba group 18 TRICHOPTERA 27.8 Glossosomatidae Agapetus 3 Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche bronta 18 Ceratopsyche sparna 6 Cheumatopsyche 74 Hydropsyche carolina 4 Limnephilidae Platycentropus radiatus 1 Pycnopsyche scabripenis group 1 Philopotamidae Dolophilodes distinctus 2 Phryganeidae pupa 1 Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 1 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila carolina 1 Rhyacophila fuscula larvae and pupae 28 Uenoidae Neophylax 3 Total 515
TAXA RICHNESS = 54 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 31 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 4.0 (GOOD)
62 comprising 42.9% of the total sample. Caddisflies (27.8%) and dipterans (12.4%) rounded out the top three groups in terms of abundance. Stoneflies only accounted for 7.2% of the sample. Overall, a total of 54 taxa were identified from the sample of which 31 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “good” (4.0). Probably the most notable occurrence resulting from our benthic survey was the collection of Hydropsyche carolina which represented a new occurrence record for the state. Likewise, we collected a species of Neophylax that may represent an undescribed species. Further collection and rearing will be conducted in order to assess the taxonomic uncertainty of this caddisfly.
Discussion
Doe Creek represents an outstanding and unique resource in east Tennessee. The protection of the watershed and water supply to the creek should be a management priority of the Agency. With the request to withdraw more water from Lowe Spring and remove the restrictions on when the water can be withdrawn, the ability of Doe Creek to maintain the quality fishery it now supports will be in question. The potential development of an asphalt plant also poses another threat to the stream in the lower reaches. This needs to be monitored closely so any degradation to Doe Creek can be quickly addressed.
Management Recommendations
1. Periodically monitor this stream to determine relative health changes.
2. Continue to oppose the increased withdrawal of water from Lowe Spring.
63 Gap Creek
Introduction
We were asked to evaluate Gap Creek as a result of stream protection work that had been accomplished by the landowner through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) stream protection programs. The agency has not collected any information on the species inhabiting this reach of the stream. Agricultural is the primary activity in the watershed, and many reaches of this streams riparian zone had been cleared as a result of these activities.
Study Area and Methods
Our survey of Gap Creek (Figure 30) was conducted along Hwy 70 just south of the community of Enterprise. Agricultural operations within the watershed are prevalent, some, being quite extensive. Our evaluation of the fish community was accomplished
FiFigure 30. Gap Creek survey location 2005.
Sample Site Lat: 36.31855 Long: -82.93059 17-August-05
through an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) survey. Benthic organisms were collected with kick nets during a timed survey. Analysis of the fish and benthic samples followed procedures developed by Karr et al. (1986) and Lenat (1993). At our sample location silt/sand and bedrock were the dominant substrate components in pools comprising about 60% of the substrate. In the riffle areas cobble and bedrock were dominant accounting for 50% of the available substrate.
64 Riffles dominated the habitat features contributing about 70% of the available habitat. There was some alteration of the riparian zones especially on the right descending bank, although this had been recently mitigated by the landowner. Basic water quality measurements at this site revealed the following information: temperature 25 C, conductivity 330 µs/cm, and a pH of 6.5. The discharge for the stream was estimated to be 0.2 cfs.
Results
We collected a total of 336 fish representing 11 species at our sample site (Table 26). The only game species collected at this site was redbreast sunfish. The two most dominant species collected in our sample were the striped shiner and the largescale stoneroller. Together, these two species comprised 59% of the total number of fish in our sample. Two darter species were collected from the stream, snubnose darter and stripetail darter. There were four IBI metrics that had the most negative influence on the overall score. These included the high percentage of tolerant species, high percentage of trophic generalists, low percentage of specialized insectivores, and the absence of piscivores.
Table 26. Fish species occurrence for Gap Creek 2005. Site Code Species Tads Total Number Code 420051101 Ambloplites rupestris 342 5 420051101 Campostoma oligolepis 45 80 420051101 Catostomus commersoni 195 4 420051101 Etheostoma kennicotti 418 20 420051101 Etheostoma tennesseense 435 5 420051101 Hypentelium nigricans 207 9 420051101 Lepomis auritus 346 2 420051101 Luxilus chrysocephalus 89 117 420051101 Pimephales notatus 176 1 420051101 Rhynichthys obtusus 184 53 420051101 Semotilus atromacualtus 188 40 Total 336
Overall, the IBI analysis indicated this reach of Gap Creek was in poor to fair condition (IBI score = 36) (Table 27). The most noticeable physical factors influencing this low rating were the poor habitat and the influence of sedimentation. The preponderance of bedrock in the site provided very little habitat for fish and probably was the single most influential factor in regulating the diversity in this reach. The improvements to the stream crossings as well as the riparian zone management and exclusion of cattle from the stream will ultimately benefit this reach of the stream. Overall our visual assessment of the habitat resulted in a rating of “poor” based on an average score of 35. Although the stream did have factors that were depressing the fish community, we did collect species considered less tolerant to pollutants. Both rock bass and northern hog sucker were present as well as the two darter species mentioned previously.
65 Table 27. Gap Creek Index of Biotic Integrity analysis. Metric Description Scoring Criteria Observed Score 1 3 5 Number of Native Species <7 7-14 >15 10 3 Number of Darter Species 0 1 >1 2 5 Number of Sunfish Species less Micropterus 0 1 >1 1 3 Number of Sucker Species 0 1 >1 2 5 Number of Intolerant Species 0 1-2 >2 1 3 Percent of Individuals as Tolerant >37 37-18 <18 48.2 1 Percent of Individuals as Omnivores >46 46-23 <23 60 1 Percent of Individuals as Specialists <13 13-26 >26 7.5 1 Percent of Individuals as Piscivores <1.3 1.3-3.5 >3.5 0 1 Catch Rate <15 15-53 >53 51.7 3 Percent of Individuals as Hybrids >1 1-Tr 0 0 5 Percent of Individuals with Anomalies >5 5-2 <2 0 5 Total 36 (Poor-Fair)
Table 28. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Gap Creek. ORDER FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT COLEOPTERA 13.7 Dryopidae Helichus adult 1 Elmidae Ancyronx variegatus larva 1 Dubiraphia adults 2 Optioservus larvae and adults 12 Stenelmis adults 13 Psephenidae Psephenus herricki larvae and adults 19 DIPTERA 5.1 Chironomidae 15 Simuliidae 2 Tabanidae Tabanus 1 EPHEMEROPTERA 38.9 Baetidae Baetis 4 Heptageniidae Leucrocuta early instar 1 Maccaffertium early instars 45 Maccaffertium ithaca 11 Stenacron interpunctatum 3 Isonychiidae Isonychia 72 HETEROPTERA 0.9 Gerridae Aquarius remigis male and female 2 Veliidae Rhagovelia obesa adult male 1 MEGALOPTERA 10.3 Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus 8 Nigronia serricornis 27 Sialidae Sialis 1
NEMATOMORPHA 1 0.3
ODONATA 8.6 Aeshnidae Basiaeshna janata 1 Boyeria vinosa 4 Calopterygidae Calopteryx 2 Coenagrionidae Argia 2 Gomphidae Gomphus (Genus A) rogersi 1 Gomphus early instars 5 Gomphus lividus 4 Stylogomphus albistylus 9 Macromiidae Macromia 2 PLECOPTERA 5.4 Leuctridae Leuctra 11 Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 4 Perlidae Acroneuria evoluta 4 TRICHOPTERA 16.9 Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 22 Hydropsyche betteni/depravata 2 Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche luculenta group 2 Philopotamidae Chimara 32 Psychomyiidae Lype diversa 1 Total 350 TAXA RICHNESS = 36 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 13 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 3.5 (FAIR/GOOD)
66 Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in our sample comprised 25 families representing 32 identified genera (Table 28). The most abundant group in our collection was the mayflies representing 38.9% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 36 taxa were identified from the sample of which 13 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “fair/good” (3.5).
Discussion
Gap Creek is typical of many streams in the Ridge and Valley province of east Tennessee. Agricultural impacts are the dominating influence impairing many of the streams in the region. Efforts such as those demonstrated on this reach of Gap Creek ultimately benefit the landowner and landowners downstream.
Management Recommendations
1. Periodically monitor this stream to determine relative health changes and evaluate improvements resulting from land management practices.
67 Pigeon River
Introduction
The Pigeon River has had a long history of pollution problems, stemming primarily from the 80 plus-year discharge of wastewater from the Champion Paper Mill in Canton, North Carolina. This discharge has undoubtedly had a profound effect on the recreational use of the river and after the discovery of elevated dioxin levels in the 1980’s raised concerns about public health (TDEC 1996). Although the river has received increased attention in recent years, the recreational use of the river has not developed its full potential. In terms of the fishery, consumption of all fish was prohibited up until 1996 when the ordinance was downgraded, limiting consumption of carp, catfish, and redbreast sunfish (TDEC 1996). In 2003, all consumption advisories were removed from the river. Since 1988, inter-agency Index of Biotic Integrity samples have been conducted at two localities near river mile 8.2 (Tannery Island) and river mile 16.6 (Denton).
Our 2005 surveys focused on continuing our collection of catch effort data for black bass and rock bass and assisting with evaluating the fish community at two long-term IBI stations. Catch effort data along with otolith samples from rock bass and black bass were collected from three sites in 1997 (Bivens et al. 1998) and five sites in 1998 (Carter et al. 1999). Since 1999, data has been collected at five to six sites between river mile 4.0 and 20.5 (Carter et al. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). During 1998, a 508 mm minimum (20-inch) length limit on smallmouth bass with a one fish possession limit was passed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission (TWRC). This regulation was implemented on March 1, 1999.
Study Area and Methods
The Pigeon River originates in North Carolina and flows in a northwesterly direction before emptying into the French Broad River near river mile 73.8. The river has a drainage area of approximately 1,784 km2 at its confluence with the French Broad River. In Tennessee, approximately 35 kilometers of the Pigeon River flows through mountainous terrain with interspersed communities and small farms before joining the French Broad River near Newport. Public access along the river is primarily limited to bridge crossings and small “pull-outs” along roads paralleling the river. There are a few primitive launching areas for canoes or small boats. Between July and October, 2005, we conducted seven fish surveys at six sites between Newport and the community of Hartford (Figure 31). We were unable to complete one of our CPUE survey sites (site 2) due to flood damage at this location. Our historical access to the river had all but been obliterated from a flood that hit the watershed in late summer 2004. Because this portion of the river is a tailwater, habitat availability fluctuates with water releases. However, in our survey sites during low flow, the habitat consisted primarily of wooded shorelines with interspersed rock outcroppings. Submerged woody debris was fairly common in most of our sample areas. The river substrate was predominately boulder/cobble in riffle areas and bedrock with interspersed boulder/cobble in the pool areas. Measured channel widths ranged from 35.3 to 64.3 m, while site lengths fell between 80 and 839 m (Table 25). Water temperatures ranged from 15.5 to 19.5 C and conductivity varied from 185 to 230 µs/cm (Table 29).
68 Figure 31. Site locations for samples conducted in the Pigeon River during 2005.
6
1
2
3
4 5
69 Table 29. Physiochemical and site location data for CPUE samples conducted in the Pigeon River during 2005. Site Code Site County Quad River Latitude Longitude Mean Length Temp. Cond. Secchi (m) Mile Width (m) C (m) 420051201 1 Cocke Newport 8.1 35.94250 -83.17860 53.6 392 - - - 173NW 420051202 No Sample 420051203 3 Cocke Hartford 16.6 35.84410 -83.18440 - 414 - - - 173SW 420051204 4 Cocke Hartford 19 35.81300 -83.17800 35.3 80 15.5 185 - 173SW 420051205 5 Cocke Hartford 20.5 35.81360 -83.16250 47.3 839 16 202 - 173SW 420051206 6 Cocke Newport 4.0 35.98250 -83.19880 54 193 19.5 230 - 173NW
Catch-per-unit-effort fish samples were collected by boat electrofishing in accordance with the standard large river sampling protocols (TWRA 1998). Fixed-boom electrodes were used to transfer 4-5 amps DC at all sites. This current setting was determined effective in narcotizing all target species (black bass and rock bass). All fish collected were returned to the river. Additionally, efforts were made to identify non-target species encountered at each survey site. All sites were sampled during daylight hours and had survey durations ranging from 901 to 3,057 seconds. Catch-per-unit-effort values were calculated for each target species at each site. Length categorization indices were calculated for target species following Gabelhouse (1984). Index of Biotic Integrity samples were collected using both backpack and boat electrofishing in accordance with standardized protocols.
Results
During our surveys, smallmouth bass and rock bass were collected from all sample sites. Spotted bass were not collected at any of the sampling stations. Largemouth bass was present only at site 5. Smallmouth bass was the most abundant black bass species at any of the survey sites. CPUE estimates for this species averaged 26.4/hour (SD 12.8) (Table 30). Our highest observed catches of smallmouth bass were recorded at site 3 (Denton) and site 5 (Hartford). Rock bass CPUE was highest in sites 3 and 5, averaging 23.6/hour (SD 15.0). The highest catch rate for this species was recorded at site 3 (45.8/hour), which also had the highest value in 2004. Overall, we observed a 57% decrease in the mean catch rate of smallmouth bass between the 2004 and 2005 samples. Although our 2005 sample was consistently timed with the sampled taken in 2004 (mid-October) we feel the water temperature had not decreased sufficiently to move the majority of the bass into their winter habitat (pools). Therefore, our catches were probably depressed from expected values. Fluctuation in the number of spotted bass and largemouth bass is not uncommon for the Pigeon River and has been observed in previous samples. We have noticed that the spotted bass population in this river has declined and remained in a depressed condition for several years.
70 Table 30. Catch per unit effort and length categorization indices of target species collected at five sites on the Pigeon River during 2005. Site Code Smallmouth Bass Spotted Bass Largemouth Bass Rock Bass CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE 420051201 6.0 - - 4.0 420051202 No sample No sample No sample No sample 420051203 30.6 - - 45.8 420051204 26.0 - - 18.5 420051205 41.4 - 4.3 25.7 420051206 28.0 - - 24.0
MEAN 26.4 0 0.86 23.6 STD. DEV. 12.8 0 1.92 15.0 Smallmouth Bass Spotted Bass Largemouth Bass Rock Bass Length- Length- Length- Length- Categorization Categorization Categorization Categorization Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis PSD =45.2 PSD = 0 PSD =50 PSD =23.8 RSD-Preferred =21.4 RSD-Preferred = 0 RSD-Preferred =0 RSD-Preferred =2.9 RSD-Memorable =2.3 RSD-Memorable = 0 RSD-Memorable =0 RSD-Memorable =0 RSD-Trophy =0 RSD-Trophy = 0 RSD-Trophy =0 RSD-Trophy =0
The majority of the smallmouth bass collected from the Pigeon River during 2005 fell within the 125 to 250 mm length range (Figure 32). Our data indicated that bass less than 100 mm were not completely vulnerable to the sampling gear, although the catch of juvenile fish was somewhat higher when compared to 2004. Length categorization analysis indicated the Relative Stock Density (RSD) for preferred smallmouth bass (TL > 350 mm) was 21.4,
Figure 32. Length frequency distribution for smallmouth bass collected from the Pigeon River during 2005.
50 40 30 Smallmouth Bass 20
Frequency Frequency 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Length Class (mm)
which was down 33% from the previous year. RSD for memorable (TL > 430 mm) and trophy (TL > 510 mm) size bass were 2.3 and 0, respectively. The PSD of smallmouth bass (ratio of quality size bass to stock size bass) was 45.2. Catch per unit effort estimates by RSD category indicated smallmouth bass had the highest catch rates of any of the black bass species collected for the category RSD-S and above (Figure 33). Both sub-stock and stock categories declined proportionally between 2004 and 2005 and most noticeably in the RSD-Stock category. We observed proportional decreases in the other RSD categories as well, resulting from our 57% decrease in catch rate.
71 Figure 33. Relative stock density (RSD) catch per unit effort for smallmouth bass collected from the Pigeon River during 2005.
18 16 14 12 10 Smallmouth Bass 8 6 CPUE (#/hour) 4 2 0 TL => 180mm Stock 180mm => TL TL => 280mm Quality 280mm => TL TL => 510 mm Trophy 510 mm => TL TL => 350mm Preferred 350mm => TL TL <= 179mm Sub-stock 179mm <= TL TL => 430 mm Memorable 430 mm => TL
There were no spotted bass collected from the Pigeon River in 2005 (2 collected in 2004. Because no spotted bass collected in the sample, no useful information could be derived regarding the size structure of this species.
Only three largemouth bass were collected from all of our sites surveyed in 2005. Largemouth bass have always been a rarity at all of our sample stations and it is not unexpected to survey all sample stations without observing this species. The largemouth collected in 2005 ranged in length from 236 to 342 mm.
Individuals in the 125 to 175 mm range represented the majority of rock bass in our sample (Figure 34). Length categorization analysis indicated the RSD for preferred rock bass (TL > 230 mm) was 2.9, which was an increase from the previous year sample (0). RSD for memorable (TL > 280 mm) and trophy (TL > 330 mm) size rock bass was 0. The PSD of rock bass was 23.8, which was down 19% from the sample taken in 2004. Catch per unit effort estimates by RSD category indicated the majority of our catch was stock size fish (Figure 35) with about 22.7% of the catch representing quality size fish.
72 Figure 34. Length frequency distribution for rock bass collected from the Pigeon River during 2005.
30 25 20 15 Rock Bass 10 5 Frequency 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Length Class (mm)
The sub-stock catch of rock bass was low, but probably does not indicate poor recruitment due to the fact that sampling efficiency is usually lower with this size group. Overall, we observed increases in all RSD categories represented in 2005 when compared to the 2004 values.
Figure 35. Relative stock density (RSD) catch per unit effort by category for rock bass collected from the Pigeon River during 2005.
30
25
20
15 Rock Bass
10 CPUE (#/hour) (#/hour) CPUE
5
0 TL => 100mm Stock TL => 180mm Quality TL => 330 mmTrophy TL <= 99mm Sub-stock TL => 230mm Preferred TL => 280 mmMemorable
Linear and curvilinear length-weight regression analysis has been calculated for previous data (Carter et al. 1999, 2000), and is assumed to be similar for the 2005 data. No age and growth data was collected from this population in 2005; age and growth characteristics for rock bass in the Pigeon River are well documented from recent surveys (Carter et al. 1999, 2000).
73 During 2001 we had a sample of black bass and rock bass tested for disease by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the wild fish health survey. We were primarily interested in determining if there was a high incidence of disease among these species due to prolonged exposure to pollutants in the river. We were also interested in screening largemouth bass for largemouth bass virus (LMBV), which has been identified in some Tennessee reservoir populations. Our sample from the Pigeon River in 2001 did not indicate any disease commonly associated with the species tested.
Several other species were collected or observed (40) during our cooperative IBI surveys at Tannery Island and Denton. None of the fish collected in the 2005 sample were listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the TWRA as threatened or endangered. A list of species occurrence at these two sites can be found in Table 31.
Table 31. Distribution of fish species collected in the Pigeon River during 2005. Pigeon River Mile 8.1 16.6 420051201 420051203
Species Ambloplites rupestris Ambloplites rupestris Aplodinotus grunniens Campostoma oligolepis Campostoma oligolepis Cottus carolinae Catostomus commersoni Cyprinella galactura Cottus carolinae Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinella galactura Etheostoma blennioides Cyprinella spiloptera Etheostoma rufilineatum Cyprinus carpio Etheostoma tennessense Dorosoma cepedianum Hypentelium nigricans Etheostoma blennioides Ictalurus punctatus Etheostoma kennicotti Ictiobus bubalus Etheostoma rufilineatum Lepomis auritus Etheostoma tennessense Lepomis macrochirus Hybopsis amblops Micropterus dolomieu Hybrid Lepomis spp. Micropterus punctulatus Hypentelium nigricans Moxostoma anisurum Ichthyomyzon bdellium Moxostoma carinatum Ictalurus punctatus Moxostoma duquesnei Ictiobus bubalus Moxostoma erythrurum Ictiobus niger Moxostoma breviceps Lepomis auritus Notropis amblops Lepomis cyanellus Notropis leuciodus Lepomis macrochirus Notropis photogenis Micropterus dolomieu Notropis rubellus Micropterus punctulatus Notropis telescopus Micropterus salmoides Percina caprodes Morone chrysops Sander canadense Moxostoma anisurum Sander vitreum Moxostoma breviceps Moxostoma carinatum Moxostoma duquesnei Moxostoma erythrurum Notropis photogenis Notropis rubellus Notropis telescopus Percina caprodes Percina evides Pomoxis nigromaculatus Sander canadense Sander vitreum
74 Benthic macroinvertebrates collected at the Tannery Island site comprised 20 families representing 21 identified genera (Table 32). The most abundant group in our collection was the dipterans comprising 24.2% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 29 taxa were identified from the sample of which 9 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “fair/fair-good” (2.8).
Table 32. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from the Pigeon River at Tannery Island (river mile 8.1).
FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT ANNELIDA 7.6 Hirudinea 1 Oligochaeta 11 COLEOPTERA 1.9 Elmidae Ancyronyx variegatus adults 2 Promoresia elegans adult 1 DIPTERA 24.2 Chironomidae larvae and pupae 18 Simuliidae 18 Tipulidae Tipula 2 EPHEMEROPTERA 7.0 Baetidae Acentrella 5 Heterocloeon 5 Ephemerellidae Eurylophella verisimilis 1 GASTROPODA 14.0 Physidae 7 Pleuroceridae Pleurocera 15 ISOPODA 2.5 Asellidae Caecidotea 4 MEGALOPTERA 6.4 Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus 8 Nigronia serricornis 2 ODONATA 8.3 Calopterygidae Hetaerina americana 8 Coenagrionidae Argia bipunctulata 1 Argia fumipennis 1 Enallagma divagans 1 Enallagma weewa 1 Gomphidae Hagenius brevistylus 1 PELECYPODA 3.8 Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 3 Sphaeriidae Pisidium 3 PLECOPTERA 1.3 Perlidae Perlesta (freckled form) 2 TRICHOPTERA 22.9 Brachycentridae Brachycentrus lateralis 1 Brachycentrus numerosus 2 Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche morosa 29 Cheumatopsyche 3 Hydropsyche franclemonti 1 Total 157 TAXA RICHNESS = 29 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 9 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 2.8 (FAIR/FAIR-GOOD)
Benthic macroinvertebrates collected at the Denton site comprised 31 families representing 33 identified genera (Table 33). The most abundant group in our collection was the mayflies comprising 32.7% of the total sample. Overall, a total of 42 taxa were identified
75 from the sample of which 17 were EPT. Based on the EPT taxa richness and overall biotic index of all species collected, the relative health of the benthic community was classified as “fair-good/good” (3.8).
Table 33. Taxa list and associated biotic statistics for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from the Pigeon River at Denton (river mile 16.6).
FAMILY SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT ANNELIDA 1.8 Oligochaeta 10 COLEOPTERA 6.0 Dryopidae Helichus adults 5 Elmidae Ancyronyx variegatus 2 Macronychus glabratus 3 Optioservus ovalis 2 Promoresia elegans larva and adults 22 COLLEMBOLA 0.4 Isotomidae Isotomurus palustris 2 DIPTERA Chironomidae larvae and pupae 32 12.4 Empididae 1 Simuliidae larvae and pupae 22 Tabanidae Tabanus 1 Tipulidae Antocha 13 Tipula 1 EPHEMEROPTERA 32.7 Baetidae Acentrella 62 Heterocloeon 28 Procloeon 22 Caenidae Caenis 1 Ephemerellidae Serratella 11 Heptageniidae Maccaffertium sp. 48 Maccaffertium mediopunctatum 2 Isonychiidae Isonychia 11 GASTROPODA 1.8 Physidae 9 Planorbidae 1 HETEROPTERA 13.6 Veliidae Rhagovelia obesa nymphs and adults 77 ISOPODA 2.7 Asellidae Caecidotea 15 MEGALOPTERA 2.7 Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus 13 Nigronia serricornis 2 ODONATA 4.1 Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 7 Calopterygidae Hetaerina americana 12 Corduliidae early instars 3 Gomphidae Lanthus vernalis 1 PELECYPODA 1.9 Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 9 Sphaeriidae Psidium 3 TRICHOPTERA 19.8 Brachycentridae Brachycentrus lateralis 4 Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche morosa 27 Ceratopsyche sparna 46 Hydropsyche venularis 18 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 2 Leptoceridae Mystacides sepulchralis 1 Oecetis avara 2 Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 11 Psyschomyiidae Lype diversa 1 Total 565 TAXA RICHNESS = 42 EPT TAXA RICHNESS = 17 BIOCLASSIFICATION = 3.8 (FAIR-GOOD/GOOD)
76 Discussion
The Pigeon River provides anglers with the opportunity to catch all species of black bass as well as rock bass. Perhaps the greatest potential for elevating this river’s “trophy” status lies in the smallmouth bass population. Given that a fair percentage of smallmouth bass are reaching the preferred category (average 20% between 1997-2005) and that these fish are growing slightly slower than the statewide average (Carter et al. 1999), there would appear to be good potential for trophy management of the smallmouth bass population in this river. We are currently tracking trends in this segment of the smallmouth bass population (Figure 36).
Figure 36. Trends in the ratio of preferred, memorable, and trophy smallmouth bass collected from the Pigeon River 1997-2005. 20” regulation implemented 40 31.9 25 23.8 Preferred TL => 350 mm 30 20 18.4 21.4 14.7 12.8 12.7 20 11.1 8.8 8.3 Memorable TL => 430 mm Ratio 5.1 2.9 5.6 10 0 2 2.3 Trophy TL => 510 mm 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year
Over the last 18 years the IBI scores (TWRA and TVA data) at two stations on the Pigeon River have been steadily increasing (Figure 37). Results from the 2005 surveys indicated the Pigeon River was in “good” condition at river mile 8.1 (IBI score 52) and 16.5 (IBI score 48). This has primarily been the result of improved wastewater treatment at the Blue Ridge Paper Mill in Canton, North Carolina. The improved water quality has undoubtedly had an affect on the amount of recreation that is currently taking place, particularly whitewater rafting. It has also resulted in the return of a few species (e.g. silver shiner, telescope shiner) previously not encountered in the annual surveys and the implementation of a fish and mollusk recovery effort. The continuation of improvements to the water quality of the Pigeon River will in all likelihood have dramatic impacts on the use of the river in the future. Surveys on the Pigeon River will be conducted on an annual basis in order to assess any changes in the fishery.
Figure 37. Trends in Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) at two stations on the Pigeon River (1988-2005).
60
40 Denton
Score 20 Tannery Island
0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year
77 Based on our findings from our 2002 and 2004 fall surveys, we have become convinced that sampling the river at this time of year gives us a better indication of the actual smallmouth bass population composition and size structure. We will monitor black bass and rock bass populations in the Pigeon River during late September or October in order to increase our efficiency in characterizing the smallmouth bass populations in the river. An angler use survey will be conducted for the Pigeon River in 2006.
Management Recommendations
1. Implement an angler-use and harvest survey in 2006.
2. Continue monitoring the sport fish population, with detailed analysis focusing on the smallmouth bass fishery and timing of sampling efforts.
3. Continue the cooperative IBI surveys at the two established stations (Denton and Tannery Island).
4. Develop a management plan for the river.
5. Continue cooperative efforts to reintroduce common species.
78 Summary
We surveyed four rivers and 11 streams, collecting 51 fish samples and 12 benthic samples. In the four large rivers sampled during 2005, mean CPUE values for smallmouth bass ranged from a high of 41.7/hour in the Powell River to a low 26.4/hour in the Pigeon River. In the Pigeon River we observed a decrease in the mean catch of smallmouth bass and an overall decrease in the number of preferred (TL => 350mm) and memorable (TL => 430mm) size smallmouth bass when compared to the 2004. Although our sample timing was consistent with previous samples (mid-October) in the Pigeon River, the water temperature had not decreased enough to initiate the movement of bass into their winter habitat.
Of the five small stream IBI surveys conducted in 2005, Doe Creek in Johnson County and the unnamed tributary to Taylor Branch in Bradley County scored the highest with (46) followed by Williams Creek in Grainger County at 42. The lower scoring streams included Gap Creek in Greene County at 36 and Beaver Creek in Jefferson County at 30 and 38, respectively. Benthic scores for these five samples all fell between “good” and “fair/fair-good” with three being rated as “good”. One new state record of caddisfly was recorded from Doe Creek in Johnson County as well as the collection of two undetermined species of Neophylax from Doe Creek and Hurricane Creek (Franklin County). Tennessee dace were documented in three new localities in 2005 (unnamed tributary to Taylor Branch, Bradley County and to tributaries to Beech Creek in Hawkins County).
All of the streams we surveyed were suffering some type of impairment resulting from industrial, residential or agricultural activities within the watersheds. Because of their locations to large cities or mineral resources most of the streams we surveyed realistically do not have much chance of recovering unless drastic changes in land use practices are implemented.
Over the past 11 years the stream survey unit has been conducting Index of Biotic Integrity surveys in various watersheds within the region. These have been done in response to requests made by TWRA personnel, cooperative effort requests, and general interest in determining the state of certain streams. Our compilation of these surveys has given us a reference database for many streams in the region that can be used for comparison purposes should we return for a routine survey or responding to a water quality issue. Table 34 lists our results for various streams surveyed during this time period.
Table 34. Index of Biotic Integrity and Benthic Biotic Index scores for samples conducted between 1994 and 2005. Water Watershed Year County IBI Score Benthic BI Score Surveyed Capuchin Creek Cumberland River 1994 Campbell 44 (Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Trammel Branch Cumberland River 1994 Campbell 36 (Poor/Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Hatfield Creek Cumberland River 1994 Campbell 42 (Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Baird Creek Cumberland River 1994 Campbell 38 (Poor/Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Clear Fork (Site 1) Cumberland River 1994 Campbell 52 (Good) 3 (Fair/Good) Clear Fork (Site 2) Cumberland River 1994 Claiborne 40 (Fair) N/A Clear Fork (Site 3) Cumberland River 1994 Claiborne 24 (Very Poor/Poor) 1 (Poor) Elk Fork Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 40 (Fair) 2 (Fair) Fall Branch Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 28 (Poor) 1 (Poor) Crooked Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 38 (Poor/Fair) 2 (Fair)
79 Table 34. Continued. Water Watershed Year County IBI Score Benthic BI Score Surveyed Burnt Pone Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 38 (Poor/Fair) 2 (Fair) Whistle Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 38 (Poor/Fair) 2 (Fair) Little Elk Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 40 (Fair) 2 (Fair) Lick Fork Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 38 (Poor/Fair) 2 (Fair) Terry Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 48 (Good) 2 (Fair) Crouches Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 28 (Poor) 1 (Poor) Hickory Creek (Site 1) Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 46 (Fair/Good) 3 (Fair/Good) Hickory Creek (Site 2) Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 48 (Good) 2 (Fair) White Oak Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 30 (Poor) 2 (Fair) No Business Branch Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 30 (Poor) 3 (Fair/Good) Laurel Fork Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 52 (Good) 3 (Fair/Good) Lick Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 44 (Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Davis Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 38 (Poor/Fair) 2 (Fair) Rock Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 54 (Good/Excellent) 3 (Fair/Good) Little Tackett Creek Clear Fork 1994 Claiborne 28 (Poor) 3 (Fair/Good) Unnamed tributary to Little Tackett Creek Clear Fork 1994 Claiborne 0 (No Fish) 3 (Fair/Good) Rose Creek Clear Fork 1994 Campbell 36 (Poor/Fair) 2 (Fair) Rock Creek Clear Fork 1994 Claiborne 28 (Poor) 2 (Fair) Tracy Branch Clear Fork 1994 Claiborne 34 (Poor) 2 (Fair) Little Yellow Creek (Site 1) Cumberland River 1994 Claiborne 38 (Poor/Fair) N/A Little Yellow Creek (Site 2) Cumberland River 1994 Claiborne 38 (Poor/Fair) N/A Little Yellow Creek (Site 3) Cumberland River 1994 Claiborne 36 (Poor/Fair) N/A Hickory Creek Clinch River 1995 Knox 46 (Fair/Good) 3 (Fair/Good) White Creek Clinch River 1995 Union 34 (Poor) (SC) 4 (Good) Little Sycamore Creek Clinch River 1995 Claiborne 40 (Fair) 4.5 (Good/Excel). Big War Creek Clinch River 1995 Hancock 50 (Good) 4 (Good) North Fork Clinch River Clinch River 1995 Hancock 46 (Fair/Good) 4 (Good) Old Town Creek (Site 1) Powell River 1995 Claiborne 40 (Fair) 4 (Good) Old Town Creek (Site 2) Powell River 1995 Claiborne 42 (Fair) 4 (Good) Indian Creek Powell River 1995 Claiborne N/A 4 (Good) Sweetwater Creek Tennessee River 1995 Loudon 30 (Poor) 3 (Fair/Good) Burnett Creek French Broad River 1995 Knox 46 (Fair/Good) 3 (Fair/Good) Jockey Creek Nolichucky River 1995 Greene 34 (Poor) 3 (Fair/Good) South Indian Creek (Sandy Bottoms) Nolichucky River 1995 Unicoi 38 (Poor/Fair) 4 (Good) South Indian Creek (Ernestville) Nolichucky River 1995 Unicoi 44 (Fair) 4 (Good) Spivey Creek Nolichucky River 1995 Unicoi 54 (Good/Excellent) 4 (Good) Little Flat Creek Holston River 1995 Knox 42 (Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Beech Creek Holston River 1995 Hawkins 48 (Good) 4 (Good) Big Creek Holston River 1995 Hawkins 46 (Fair/Good) 4 (Good) Alexander Creek Holston River 1995 Hawkins 34 (Poor) 4 (Good) Thomas Creek South Fork Holston River 1995 Sullivan 54 (Good/Excellent) 4 (Good) Hinds Creek Clinch River 1996 Anderson 36 (Poor/Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Cove Creek Clinch River 1996 Campbell 28 (Poor) 3 (Fair/Good) Titus Creek Clinch River 1996 Campbell 42 (Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Cloyd Creek Tennessee River 1996 Loudon 36 (Poor/Fair) 4 (Good) Sinking Creek Little Tennessee River 1996 Loudon 34 (Poor) 4 (Good) Baker Creek Little Tennessee River 1996 Loudon 26 (Very Poor/Poor) 3 (Fair/Good) Little Baker Creek Little Tennessee River 1996 Blount 38 (Poor/Fair) 4 (Good) Ninemile Creek Little Tennessee River 1996 Blount 24 (Very Poor/Poor) 4 (Good) East Fork Little Pigeon River French Broad River 1996 Sevier 36 (Poor/Fair) 3 (Fair/Good) Dunn Creek French Broad River 1996 Sevier 32 (Poor) 4 (Good) Wilhite Creek French Broad River 1996 Sevier 44 (Fair) 4 (Good) Watauga River (above Watauga Res.) Holston River 1996 Johnson 42 (Fair) 4 (Good) Stony Fork Big South Fork 1996 Campbell 38 (Poor/Fair) 4 (Good) Bullett Creek Hiwassee River 1997 Monroe 50 (Good) 4.5 (Good/Excel.) Canoe Branch Powell River 1997 Claiborne 26 (V Poor/Poor) (SC) 4.7 (Excellent) Town Creek Tennessee River 1997 Loudon 34 (Poor) 2 (Fair) Bat Creek Little Tennessee River 1997 Monroe 30 (Poor) 1.5 (Poor/Fair) Island Creek Little Tennessee River 1997 Monroe 40 (Fair) 4 (Good) Little Pigeon River French Broad River 1997 Sevier 40 (Fair) 2 (Fair) West Prong Little Pigeon River French Broad River 1997 Sevier 46 (Fair/Good) 2 (Fair) Flat Creek French Broad River 1997 Sevier 30 (Poor) 3.8 (Good) Clear Creek French Broad River 1997 Jefferson 34 (Poor) 2.2 (Fair) Richland Creek Nolichucky River 1997 Greene 30 (Poor) 2.3 (Fair) Middle Creek Nolichucky River 1997 Greene 34 (Poor) 4 (Good) Sinking Creek Pigeon River 1997 Cocke 30 (Poor) 3.8 (Good) Chestuee Creek Hiwassee River 1998 Monroe 28 (Poor) 2.5 (Fair/Fair -Good) Fourmile Creek Powell River 1998 Hancock 36 (Poor/Fair) 4.5 (Good/Excel.)
80 Table 34. Continued. Water Watershed Year County IBI Score Benthic BI Score Surveyed Martin Creek Powell River 1998 Hancock 50 (Good) 4 (Good) Big Creek Tellico River 1998 Monroe 46 (Fair/Good) 4 (Good) Oven Creek Nolichucky River 1998 Cocke 40 (Fair) 2.9 (Fair/Good) Cherokee Creek Nolichucky River 1998 Washington 36 (Poor/Fair) 2.8 (Fair/Good) Bennetts Fork Cumblerland River 2000 Claiborne 30 (Poor) 3.5 (Fair/Good) Gulf Fork Big Creek French Broad River 2001 Cocke 42 (Fair) 4.0 (Good) Nolichucky River French Broad River 2001 Unicoi 56 (Good/Excellent) 4.0 (Good) North Fork Holston River Holston River 2001 Hawkins 50 (Good) 4.5 (Good) Stinking Creek Cumberland River 2002 Campbell 42 (Fair) 4.5 (Good) Straight Fork Cumberland River 2002 Campbell 18 (Very Poor) 3.0 (Fair/Good) Montgomery Fork Cumberland River 2002 Campbell 48 (Good) 3.5 (Fair/Good) Turkey Creek Holston River 2003 Hamblen 34 (Poor) 1.5 (Poor) Spring Creek Holston River 2003 Hamblen 34 (Poor) 2.2 (Fair) Cedar Creek Holston River 2003 Hamblen 30 (Poor) 3.5 (Fair/Good) Fall Creek Holston River 2003 Hamblen 32 (Poor) 2.3 (Fair) Holley Creek Nolichucky River 2003 Greene 30 (Poor) 2.4 (Fair) College Creek Nolichucky River 2003 Greene 36 (Poor/Fair) 2.2 (Fair) Kendrick Creek South Fork Holston River 2004 Sullivan 34 (Poor) 3.8 (Fair/Good-Good) Sinking Creek South Fork Holston River 2004 Sullivan 32 (Poor) 3.8 (Fair/Good-Good) Mud Creek Nolichucky River 2004 Greene 46 (Fair/Good) 4.0 (Good) New River (Site 1) Big South Fork Cumberland River 2004 Anderson 30 (Poor) 4.2 (Good) New River (Site 2) Big South Fork Cumberland River 2004 Campbell 42 (Fair) 3.5 (Fair/Good) Indian Fork Big South Fork Cumberland River 2004 Anderson 41 (Fair) 3.8 (Fair/Good-Good) Unnamed Tributary to Taylor Branch Hiwassee River 2005 Bradley 48 (Good) 4.0 (Good) Little River (Coulters Bridge) Tennessee River 2005 Blount 54 (Good/Excellent) Little River (Townsend) Tennessee River 2005 Blount 48 (Good) Williams Creek Clinch River 2005 Grainger 42 (Fair) 4.3 (Good) Beaver Creek (Site 1) Holston River 2005 Jefferson 38 (Poor/Fair) 2.8 (Fair/Fair-Good) Beaver Creek (Site 2) Holston River 2005 Jefferson 30 (Poor) 3.2 (Fair/Good) Doe Creek Holston River 2005 Johnson 46 (Fair/Good) 4.0 (Good) Gap Creek Nolichucky River 2005 Greene 36 (Poor/Fair) 3.5 (Fair/Good) Pigeon River (Tannery Island) French Broad River 2005 Cocke 52 (Good) 2.8 (Fair/Fair-Good) Pigeon River (Denton) French Broad River 2005 Cocke 48 (Good) 3.8 (Fair-Good/Good)
81 Literature Cited
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1986. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation Program. Activity 1: Mussel distribution surveys. Tennessee Valley Authority, Field Operations. Division of Services and Field Operations. 125pp.
Bivens, R.D. 1988. Region IV stream fishery data collection report: 1986-1987. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Bivens, R.D., B.D. Carter, and C.E. Williams. 1995. Region IV stream fishery data collection report: 1994. Fisheries Report 95-60. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Bivens, R.D., B.D. Carter, and C.E. Williams. 1998. Region IV stream fishery data collection report: 1997. Fisheries Report 98-1. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A Gnilka, editors. 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Enterprises, Mohomet, Illinois.
Carter, B.D., C.E. Williams, and R.D. Bivens. 1999. Region IV stream fishery data collection report: 1998. Fisheries Report 99-5. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Carter, B.D., C.E. Williams, and R.D. Bivens. 2000. Warmwater stream fisheries report: 1999. Fisheries Report 00-10. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Carter, B.D., C.E. Williams, R.D. Bivens, and J.W. Habera. 2001. Warmwater stream fisheries report: Region IV 2000. Fisheries Report 01-02. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Carter, B.D., C.E. Williams, R.D. Bivens, and J.W. Habera. 2002. Warmwater stream fisheries report. Region IV 2001. Fisheries Report 02-05. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Carter, B.D., C.E. Williams, R.D. Bivens, and J.W. Habera. 2003. Warmwater stream fisheries report. Region IV 2002. Fisheries Report 03-04. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Carter, B.D., C.E. Williams, R.D. Bivens, and J.W. Habera. 2004. Warmwater stream fisheries report. Region IV 2003. Fisheries Report 04-03. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Etnier, D.A, J.T. Baxter Jr., S.J. Fraley, and C.R. Parker. 1998. A checklist of the Trichoptera of Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science. 73(1-2): 53- 72.
82 Fausch, K.D., J.R. Karr, and P.R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:39-55.
Gabelhouse, D.W. 1984. A length-categorization system to assess fish stocks. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:273-285.
Habera, J.W., R.D. Bivens, B.D. Carter, and C.E. Williams. 2006. Region IV trout fisheries Report: 2005. Fisheries Report No. 06-01. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters, a method and its rationale. Illinois History Survey, Special Publication 5.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History. Publication #1980-12 of the North Carolina Biological Survey.
Lenat, D.R. 1993. A biotic index for the Southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water quality ratings. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):279-290.
Louton, J.A. 1982. Lotic dragonfly (Anisoptera:Odonata) nymphs of the southeastern United States: identification, distribution, and historical biogeography. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Nelson, J.S., J. Crossman, H. Espinoza-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J.D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United State, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Management. 1995. Standard operating procedures- biological monitoring. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 43 pp.
Orth, D.J. 1983. Aquatic measurements. Pages 61-84 in L.A. Neilsen and D.L. Johnson, editors. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Smith, R.K., P.L. Freeman, J.V. Higgins, K.S. Wheaton, T.W. Fitzhugh, K.J. Ernstrom, and A.A. Das. 2002. Priority areas of freshwater conservation: A biodiversity of the southeastern United States. The Nature Conservancy.
Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark. 1988. Nymphs of North America stonefly genera (Plecoptera). Entomological Society of America. Volume 12.
83 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 1996. The status of water quality in Tennessee 1996 305(b) report. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1998. Holston Watershed: Biological condition of streams. 1993- 1997. Tennessee Valley Authority, Clean Water Initiative.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 1998. Stream surveys protocols of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville. 21 pp.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2000. Strategic wildlife resources management plan for the start of a new millennium. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.
84
APPENDIX A
85 Common and scientific names of fishes used in this report (Nelson et al. 2004) Family Common Name Scientific Name Catostomidae Black buffalo Ictiobus niger Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Spotted sucker Minytreram melanops Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum Smallmouth redhorse Moxostoma breviceps Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus White sucker Catostomus commersoni
Centrarchidae Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus Black crappie Pomoxis nigromacualtus
Clupeidae Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Cottidae Banded sculpin Cottus carolinae Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi
Cyprinidae Bigeye chub Hybopsis amblops Western Blacknose dace Rhinichthys obtusus Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Carp Cyprinus carpio Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Blotched chub Erimystax insignis Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis Mimic shiner Notropis vollucelus Mountain shiner Lythrurus lirus River chub Nocomis micropogon Rosefin shiner Lythrurus fasciolaris Rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus Rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides Silver shiner Notropis photogenis Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus Telescope shiner Notropis telescopus Tennessee dace Phoxinus tennesseensis Tennessee shiner Notropis leuciodus Stargazing minnow Phenocobius uranops Warpaint shiner Luxilus coccogenis
86 Cyprinidae Whitetail shiner Cyprinella galactura
Fundulidae Northern studfish Fundulus catenatus Blackspotted topminnow Fundulus olivaceous
Ictaluridae Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus
Lepisosteidae Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus
Moronidae White Bass Morone chrysops
Percidae Banded darter Etheostoma zonale Black darter Etheostoma duryi Blotchside logperch Percina burtoni Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum Blueside darter Etheostoma jessiae Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare Gilt darter Percina evides Greenside darter Etheostoma blenniodes Etheostoma tennessense Johnny darter Etheostoma nigurm Logperch Percina caprodes Longhead darter Percina macrocephala Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum Redline darter Etheostoma ruflineatum Sauger Sander canadense Snubnose darter Etheostoma simoterum Stripetail darter Etheostoma kennocotti Tangerine darter Percina tanasi Walleye Sander vitreum
Petromyzontidae American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix Least brook lamprey Lampetra aepyptera Mountain brook lamprey Icthyomyzon greeleyi Ohio lamprey Icthyomyzon bdellium
Poeciliidae Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis
Salmonidae Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
Sciaenidae Drum Aplodinotus grunniens
87